Frady v. Smith
| Decision Date | 15 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 18477,18477 |
| Citation | 247 S.C. 353,147 S.E.2d 412 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | N. W. FRADY, Appellant, v. T. C. SMITH, Jr., Respondent. |
T. E. Walsh, Spartanburg, for appellant.
E. C. Burnett, Jr., Spartanburg, for respondent.
This proceeding for the collection of past due rent was commenced by N. W. Frady, the appellant herein, against T. C. Smith, Jr., the respondent herein, by the service of a distress warrant. This warrant was issued on July 3, 1963, by the Honorable Paul S. McChesney, Jr., Judge of the Civil Courts of Spartanburg County, pursuant to Sections 15--1671.5 and 15--1671.6 of the 1962 Code, and was served upon the respondent on July 5, 1963. It was asserted in the distress warrant that the respondent was indebted to the appellant in the amount of $1,700.00, on account of past due rent on premises located at Lyman, South Carolina, and occupied by the respondent as a used car lot. A constable of Spartanburg County was ordered to levy on so much of the goods of the respondent as would be sufficient to satisfy said rent claim and, pursuant thereto he did levy upon and seize a 1962 Chevrolet automobile and a 1960 Rambler Station Wagon, both vehicles being upon the rented premises.
The trial of this case was had before the Judge of the Civil Court for Spartanburg County without a jury. At this hearing, Stephenson Finance Company appeared and claimed an unrecorded mortgage, dated July 8, 1963, on the 1962 Chevrolet automobile, and an unrecorded mortgage, dated July 1, 1963, on the 1960 Rambler Station Wagon.
It is conclusive from the testimony that in May, 1957, the appellant rented a lot near Lyman, South Carolina, to the respondent on a month to month basis, under an agreement whereby he was to pay a rental of $25.00 per month. The respondent admitted the rental contract and that he was indebted to the appellant in the sum of $1,700.00 for past due rent.
The respondent testified that the 1962 Chevrolet automobile was bought by him and brought upon the rented premises on June 19, 1963, and such was mortgaged by him to Stephenson Finance Company on July 8, 1963. He testified also that the 1960 Rambler Station Wagon was bought by him and brought upon the rented premises on June 28, 1963, and was mortgaged to Stephenson Finance Company on July 1, 1963. He admitted that neither of these motor vehicles was purchased from Stephenson Finance Company. He testified also that he told the constable at the time of the service of the distress warrant that all of the motor vehicles upon the rented premises were mortgaged.
The Judge of the Civil Court for Spartanburg County issued his order, on November 27, 1963, awarding the appellant judgment in the amount of $50.00, being rent for the months of June and July, 1963, and declaring that said sum constituted a first lien on the two vehicles levied upon and seized pursuant to the distress warrant. The trial judge held that the appellant had permitted the respondent to become delinquent in his payments for almost six years and by his own conduct he should be estopped from asserting a rent claim for such a long period of time. He further held that the appellant had by the aforesaid conduct waived his right to levy upon the said vehicles for the past due rent. There was an appeal from the aforesaid order to the Court of Common Pleas for Spartanburg County and such was heard by the Honorable Bruce Littlejohn, Resident Judge, and he filed his order on July 20, 1965, affirming the order of the Civil Court of Spartanburg County. This appeal followed.
A review of our statutory law, as is contained in Section 41--1 et seq., of the 1962 Code of Laws of South Carolina, which defines the law relative to landlord and tenant and other occupancies of real estate and providing remedies in relation thereto, gives a landlord no lien on the personal property of his tenant. While the landlord has no lien on such personal property, yet Section 41--151 of the Code, preserves to him his right to distrain on such property for the collection of rent due. The right of a landlord to distrain is subject to the following conditions: (1) distress must be for rent only; (2) when the relation of landlord and tenant exists; (3) when the rent reserved is certain; (4) when the rent is in arrears; and (5) when the property belongs to the tenant in his own right. The landlord, having a right to distrain for rent in arrears, has no lien for such rent until he levies by distress therefor. The right of a landlord to distrain ordinarily does not create a lien, and this lien can only be acquired by an actual levy under a distress warrant made in conformity with the provision of the statute governing the same and while the goods are on the leased premises. Burnett v. Boukedes, 240 S.C. 144, 125 S.E.2d 10.
There is no contention on the part of the respondent that the landlord has failed to show the existence of the first four prerequisites to his right to distrain for rent upon the two vehicles. However, it is contended that the property in dispute was not subject to distress because it did not belong to the tenant in his own right, the same being subject to mortgages in favor of Stephenson Finance Company.
Section 41--155 of the Code deprives the landlord of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pettigrew v. Womble
...Company v. Davis, 158 S.C. 400, 155 S.E. 622 (1930); Burnett v. Boukedes, 240 S.C. 140, 125 S.E.2d 10 (1962); and Frady v. Smith, 247 S.C. 353, 147 S.E.2d 412 (1966).1 Section 27-39-250, is a part of South Carolina's statutory scheme which codifies a landlord's common-law right to distrain ......
-
Mathis v. Brown & Brown Of South Carolina Inc
...that the employee “engaged in conduct that amounted to a false misrepresentation or concealment.” Id., citing Frady v. Smith, 247 S.C. 353, 359, 147 S.E.2d 412, 415 (1966) (the party estopped must have made a false misrepresentation or concealment or made some representation calculated to c......
-
City of Myrtle Beach v. Juel P. Corp.
...S.E.2d 100 (Ct.App.1997). Estoppel is an affirmative defense and the burden of proof is upon the party who asserts it. Frady v. Smith, 247 S.C. 353, 147 S.E.2d 412 (1966). A. Hurricane Gay Dolphin argues the City should be estopped because the City informed Gay Dolphin that the sign could n......
-
Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co. v. Driver
...S.E.2d 597. Waiver, like estoppel, is an affirmative defense and the burden of proof is upon the party who asserts it. Frady v. Smith, 247 S.C. 353, 147 S.E.2d 412 (1966). In this case, the respondent failed to meet this burden, and the master's findings of estoppel and waiver are without e......
-
The untouchables: the impact of South Carolina's new judicial selection system on the South Carolina Supreme Court, 1997-2003.
...of the 1996 amendment. (45) See Tolemac, Inc. v. United Trading, Inc., 484 S.E.2d 593, 595 (S.C. 1997), overruling Frady v. Smith, 147 S.E.2d 412 (S.C. (46) See infra apps. A & B. (47) The terms pro-defendant or pro-prosecution, when used to describe the opinions of the various jurists,......