75 S.E. 211 (S.C. 1912), Ex parte Yorke

Citation75 S.E. 211, 94 S.C. 40
Opinion JudgeFRASER, J.
Party NameEx parte YORKE. v. WEAVER. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
AttorneyLyles & Lyles, of Columbia, for appellant. J. Waites Thomas, of Columbia, for respondent.
Case DateJuly 16, 1912
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

Page 211

75 S.E. 211 (S.C. 1912)

94 S.C. 40

Ex parte YORKE.




Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 16, 1912

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; T. H. Spain, Judge.

Action by the Southern Railway Company against D. A. Weaver, in which H. E. Yorke intervened. From a judgment for plaintiff, the intervener appeals. Appeal dismissed.

Lyles & Lyles, of Columbia, for appellant. J. Waites Thomas, of Columbia, for respondent.


[94 S.C. 41] The defendant, D. A. Weaver, shipped two horses, one a stallion and the other a filly, from Fairfield, Ill., to Columbia, S. C., and paid the sum of $48.65, the freight demanded for two horses. It seems that the freight charges fixed by the commission on

Page 212

stallions was higher, and it was agreed that the correct charges were $132.80. The transportation company brought this action for $84.15, the difference, as they are required to do by law, and attached the filly as Weaver was a nonresident. The horses were shipped as the property of Weaver, but the stallion belonged to H. E. Yorke, and it is claimed that, just after the arrival of the horses, Weaver sold the filly to Yorke, and gave him a written bill of sale for it. Yorke entered the stallion as his own with the racing association, and entered the filly as the property of Weaver. Yorke then got two owner's badges, one for himself and one for Weaver. Weaver used his badge. The action was brought against Weaver alone, but Yorke intervened. The action was tried before a magistrate, who found as follows: "I find judgment for plaintiff against defendant for eighty-four and 15/100 ($84.15) dollars, and that the filly Ina Lee, claimed by H. E. Yorke, so far as this judgment is concerned, is the property of the defendant, D. A. Weaver, and that plaintiff has a lien thereon for freight; the plaintiff never having parted with possession unconditionally." The magistrate's report of the case contains the following: "The claimant, H. E. Yorke, put in evidence an alleged bill of sale, but from an inspection of the same and from the evidence submitted I found as a matter of fact that the bill of sale was not supported by the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the transaction."

[94 S.C. 42] The Circuit Judge sustained the magistrate. The intervener, Yorke, appeals to this court with the following exceptions: "(1)...

To continue reading

Request your trial