Coogler v. California Ins. Co. of San Francisco, Cal.
| Decision Date | 02 November 1939 |
| Docket Number | 14956. |
| Citation | 5 S.E.2d 459,192 S.C. 54 |
| Parties | COOGLER v. CALIFORNIA INS. CO. OF SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. SAME v. LONDON ASSUR. OF LONDON, ENGLAND. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Joseph L. Nettles, of Columbia, Williams & Cocke, of Asheville N. C., and Smith, Smith & Bloodworth, of Atlanta, Ga for appellants.
Hamilton Gaston & Hamilton, of Chester, for respondent.
In the spring of 1938 the respondent, a citizen and resident of Chester County, South Carolina, purchased a house and lot together with certain household goods, located at Bat Cave North Carolina. On July 13th of that year respondent obtained from the appellant, California Insurance Company, a policy insuring him against loss through damage by fire to the house, in the sum of $2,800. At the same time he obtained a policy from the appellant, The London Assurance of London, insuring him against loss by fire of his household goods, in the sum of $700. These policies were written by the local agents of the respective appellants in Asheville, North Carolina.
The house and its contents were destroyed by fire on July 22, 1938.
The appellants are foreign corporations, and maintain no offices or agents in Chester County. Upon their refusal to pay the loss, actions were brought upon the policies in Chester County, but upon motion of the appellants were dismissed. Thereafter, on December 23, 1938, the present actions were commenced in Richland County, and service of the summons and complaint in each case was made upon the agents of the two appellants in that county. There was a notice attached to the summons and complaint in each case, that a motion would be made to change the venue from Richland County to Chester County.
On February 13, 1939, respondent served notices of motions to change the place of trial from Richland County to Chester County, the motions being based upon the third subdivision of Section 426 of the 1932 Code, which provides that the Court may change the place of trial "when the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change".
The notice was accompanied by an affidavit of the respondent to the effect that he was a lifelong, resident of Chester County; that following the destruction of his house and household goods by fire, he had been indicted in the Superior Court of Henderson County, North Carolina, and "charged with a criminal offense" in connection with the fire; that his wife and four children are material witnesses with reference to the value of the house and its contents, the damages suffered, and the circumstances under which it burned, all of which were or would be issues in the pending cases. And he further stated that it would be very inconvenient for him and for his wife and children to attend court in any county except Chester.
The wife of the respondent and his four children likewise made affidavits, which were attached to the motion papers, setting forth that they were residents of Chester County and material witnesses by reason of facts known to them in connection with the fire which destroyed their home, and that it would be very inconvenient for them to attend court in any county other than Chester. There was also an affidavit from the respondent's physician, in which it was stated that the respondent had been confined to his home on account of illness, continuously for four or five weeks, and that it would be inconvenient for him and his wife--who is not a strong woman--to attend court outside of Chester County at this time or at any time in the near future. And the doctor expressed the opinion that the respondent would not be relieved of his present illness at an early date. All of the affidavits referred to asserted that to attend court in any county other than Chester would involve a burdensome expense upon the respondent.
The motions were heard together in Columbia on April 6, 1939 before the Honorable A. L. Gaston, who at that time was presiding over the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County. The appellants appeared, attacked the sufficiency of the showing made by the respondent, and contested the right...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sabella v. South Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Com'n, 0758
...As parties, they were entitled to notice of the hearing held before the Circuit Court. See Coogler v. California Insurance Co. of San Francisco, 192 S.C. 54, 58, 5 S.E.2d 459, 461 (1939) ("It would seem to be plain, upon well-settled and fundamental principles, that no order or judgment aff......