116 S.E. 440 (S.C. 1923), 11168, Dean v. Standard Warehouse Co.

Docket Nº:11168.
Citation:116 S.E. 440, 123 S.C. 353
Opinion Judge:FRASER, J.
Party Name:DEAN v. STANDARD WAREHOUSE CO.
Attorney:John K. Hood, of Anderson, for appellant. A. H. Dagnall, of Anderson, for respondent.
Judge Panel:COTHRAN, J., disqualified, being a stockholder in defendant company.
Case Date:March 21, 1923
Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 440

116 S.E. 440 (S.C. 1923)

123 S.C. 353

DEAN

v.

STANDARD WAREHOUSE CO.

No. 11168.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 21, 1923

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Anderson County; George E. Prince, Judge.

Action by Rossie Dean against the Standard Warehouse Company. From an order granting a new trial after a judgment for defendant, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

John K. Hood, of Anderson, for appellant.

A. H. Dagnall, of Anderson, for respondent.

FRASER, J.

The plaintiff brought this action for five bales of cotton, on the 2d day of October, 1920. T. D. Dean deposited with the Standard Warehouse Company the five bales of cotton, and took the warehouse receipts for them. He took it home, and delivered it to his wife, Rossie Dean, the plaintiff herein, as security for money loaned to the said T. D. Dean by Mrs. Rossie Dean. A short time after that, T. D. Dean took the cotton away from the warehouse, and delivered it to the Anderson Cotton Company, who sold it and deposited the proceeds of sale to the credit of T. D. Dean, in the Bank of Anderson. On the 18th of January, 1922, Mrs. Dean presented the warehouse receipts [123 S.C. 355] to the defendant, and demanded the cotton. The written assignment of the warehouse receipts was not indorsed on the receipt until just before the demand was made. The defendant, of course, could not deliver the cotton it had already delivered, and denied liability therefor. On the trial of the case the trial judge charged the jury that the warehouse was entitled to notice of the assignment of the warehouse receipt, and, if it did not have notice, the defendant was not liable. There was no suggestion of notice to the warehouse company, and the jury found for the defendant. The plaintiff made a motion for a new trial, which was granted. The defendant's attorney had no notice of the motion. Three orders were made in the matter of a new trial as follows:

"Order of August 19th.

A motion for a new trial having been made by A. H. Dagnall, Esq., attorney for the plaintiff, after argument, it is ordered that the verdict of the jury be set aside and a new trial be granted."

"Order of August 21st.

On the 19th inst. I signed an order in the above-stated case herein, reading as follows: 'A motion for a new trial having been made by A. H. Dagnall, Esq., attorney for the plaintiff, after argument, it is...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP