Cockrell v. Sedan, 16121.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: TAYLOR, Justice
• Citation: 49 S.E.2d 215
• Parties: COCKRELL. v. ONE 1946 FORD TUDOR SEDAN, BEARING MOTOR NO. A-987356 et al.
• Docket Number: No. 16121.,16121.
• Decision Date: 16 August 1948

49 S.E.2d 215

COCKRELL.
v.
ONE 1946 FORD TUDOR SEDAN, BEARING MOTOR NO. A-987356 et al.

No. 16121.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Aug. 16, 1948.

[49 S.E.2d 215]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Saluda County; T. B. Greneker, Judge.

Attachment proceeding by Barney Cock-rell, Jr., against one 1946 Ford Tudor Sedan and John C. Cook. From an order denying defendants' motion to dissolve the attachment, defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Billy C. Coleman of Saluda, for appellants.

Butler B. Hare and James Hare, both of Saluda, for respondent.

TAYLOR, Justice.

This action was an attachment proceeding in the Court of Magistrate for Saluda County, which was commenced February 7, 1948. No complaint was served along with the attachment proceedings, but was filed February 9, 1948. Appellant gave due notice of a motion to dissolve the attachment on the ground that it was irregularly issued in that the affidavit did not allege facts sufficient to show a cause of action against appellant automobile. This motion was heard by the Honorable T. B. Greneker at chambers, March 8, 1948, and as a result thereof filed the following order:

"This is an action by the plaintiff against the defendant John C. Cook and one automobile for damages.

"The defendants, both of them also moved, after proper notice to set aside the attachment on the grounds 'that it appears upon the face of the affidavit for warrant of attachment that the attachment herein was irregularly issued in that the affidavit does not set forth and allege facts sufficient to show a cause of action against the defendant automobile'.

"Upon a first consideration of this motion, under the decided cases, I was of the opinion that the motion should be granted as the allegations of the affidavit are practically the same as disapproved in Wood-worth v. Skeen, 153 S.C. 362, 150 S.E. 764. Since the Woodworth decision our Supreme Court has again passed on a similar matter in Johnson v. Hall et al, 208 S.C. 534, 38 S.E.2d 708, and in this opinion which reversed the Circuit Court which set aside the attachment, the Court said 'the decision (referring to the circuit court) was made without apparent reference to section 551 of the Code of 1942, subsection one * * *, ' and 'The "ground" necessary to be stated in the form of affidavit prescribed by section 551 need only be a statement of facts within the purview of the cited statute'. That statute provides 'When a motor vehicle is operated in violation of law, or negligently and carelessly, and when any person receives personal injury thereby, * * * or other property...