Le Hardy, Thesmar & Co. v. Dibble

• Citation: 61 S.E. 950,80 S.C. 482
• Parties: LE HARDY, THESMAR & CO. v. DIBBLE.
• Decision Date: 08 July 1908
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

61 S.E. 950

80 S.C. 482

LE HARDY, THESMAR & CO. v. DIBBLE.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 8, 1908

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; Geo. E Prince, Judge.

Action by Le Hardy, Thesmar & Co. against L. V. Dibble. From an order overruling defendant's motion to transfer the cause to another county, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Lyler & McMahan, for appellant.

Barron Moore & Barron, for respondents.

GARY A. J.

The following statement is set out in the record: "This is an action begun March 14, 1907, by cotton buyers in Savannah for alleged damages on cotton bought from defendant, on guaranteed weights and grades, by which plaintiffs shipped to Bremen and sold there; the sworn graders of the Bremen Cotton Exchange, having, after arrival of the cotton in Bremen, made reports of deficiencies, which plaintiffs were forced to make good in money. The complaint alleges that defendant is a resident of the city of Columbia, county and state above named." The defendant's attorneys made a motion for an order, transferring the case to the county of Orangeburg on the ground that the defendant is not a resident of Richland county, but is a resident of the county of Orangeburg, and that the court for Richland county had no jurisdiction. The defendant made an affidavit in support of the motion, and counter affidavits were offered in behalf of the plaintiffs. After the reading of the affidavits, his honor, the circuit judge, examined the defendant, L. V. Dibble, in open court as to his residence, and, after some argument by counsel, reserved his decision. After hearing of the motion by his honor, the defendant made a third affidavit, which his attorneys presented to his honor, and served upon plaintiff's attorneys. The circuit judge refused the motion, on the ground that the defendant was a resident of the city of Columbia, county of Richland, at the time the action was commenced. The defendant appealed from said order, and the sole question is whether there was a total failure of evidence to sustain the finding of fact, as to the residence of the defendant.

The plaintiffs relied upon the following circumstances to show that the defendant resided in Richland county (1) That the defendant kept a horse in the city of Columbia for personal use for a year or more. (2) That the defendant has rented a house in Columbia, and has lived in it, with his wife and children, for several months....