33 S.E. 580 (S.C. 1899), Barnes v. Bamberg

• Date: 17 July 1899
• Citation: 55 S.C. 499,33 S.E. 580
• Docket Number: .
• Parties: BARNES v. BAMBERG.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Page 580

33 S.E. 580 (S.C. 1899)

55 S.C. 499

BARNES

v.

BAMBERG.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 17, 1899

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Bamberg county; James Aldrich, Judge.

Proceeding by J. W. Barnes against W. H. Bamberg. From an order discharging a rule to show cause, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Howell, Gruber & Bostick, for appellant.

G. W. M. Williams, for respondent.

JONES, J.

This is a proceeding to enforce a landlord's lien for rent, and was commenced by the issuance of a warrant of attachment by the clerk of court, based upon an affidavit and an undertaking as required by law. Under this warrant the sheriff seized the crops or agricultural products subject to the lien for rent. Then, pursuant to section 2522, Rev. St., the lienee, Bamberg, in order to regain possession of the property, entered into a bond or undertaking, with sureties, "for the delivery of said property to the said J. W. Barnes, if such delivery be adjudged, and for the payment to him of such sum as may for any cause be recovered against the said W. H. Bamberg." This bond was executed October 8, 1898. Nothing was done by either party after this until November 10, 1898, when the plaintiff, Barnes, procured from Judge Aldrich a rule requiring defendant, Bamberg, to show cause why the bond or undertaking filed on his part herein should not be declared forfeited and judgment rendered herein against the defendant in favor of plaintiff for $480, the amount of rent claimed. On hearing the return to this rule, Judge Aldrich ordered that the rule be discharged, and that all parties be relegated to whatever proceedings they may be [55 S.C. 501] advised, without prejudice. From this order plaintiff, Barnes, appeals.

The circuit judge does not state in his order his reason for discharging the rule, but as the return of respondent to the rule demurred to the jurisdiction of the court to render any judgment as asked for in the proceedings, and as that is the only ground raised by the exceptions and argued here, we assume his order is based upon that ground. We think the circuit court was in error. It was competent for the court, under the rule to show cause issued in the special proceeding to collect the rent, to give judgment for the amount of rent claimed. Section 2512, Rev. St., gives the landlord the right to enforce his lien for rent in the same manner, upon the same conditions, and subject to the same restrictions as...