Hill v. Winnsboro Granite Corp.

• Decision Date: 14 July 1919
• Docket Number: 10233.
• Citation: 99 S.E. 836,112 S.C. 243
• Parties: HILL v. WINNSBORO GRANITE CORPORATION et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

99 S.E. 836

112 S.C. 243

HILL v. WINNSBORO GRANITE CORPORATION et al.

No. 10233.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 14, 1919

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

Action by I. B. Hill against the Winnsboro Granite Corporation and others. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed.

McDonald & McDonald, of Winnsboro, for appellants.

G. W Ragsdale and J. W. Hanahan, both of Winnsboro, for respondent.

GARY C.J.

This is an action in claim and delivery and for actual and punitive damages, for the alleged wrongful seizure of certain personal property.

The third paragraph of the complaint is as follows:

"That on the 24th day of September, 1915, the plaintiff intended to ship said property to Elberton, in the state of Georgia, had loaded a large part of the same onto a car belonging to the Southern Railway Company, and was engaged in loading said car for shipment when the defendant, the Winnsboro Granite Corporation, through its officers, agents and servants and the defendant B. H. Hayward, willfully wantonly, recklessly and maliciously, and with a high hand, regardless of the rights of the plaintiff, unlawfully, wrongfully took possession of said property and now has the same in their possession although they had no right to so do, and after having unlawfully and wrongly taken and seizing the property of the plaintiff as aforesaid, the defendants removed the said personal property from the station of Rockton, on the Southern Railway, where it was being loaded for shipment, to its quarry at Rion, several miles away and now keeps the said property wrongfully and unlawfully from this plaintiff and refuses to deliver the same to him."

The defendant alleged that it seized the property, under the following instrument of writing, which was signed by the plaintiff and the defendant Winnsboro Granite Corporation:

"Rion, S. C., January 1, 1915.

"In consideration of the sum of five hundred seventy-five dollars ($575.00), payable as follows:

"Cash, $34.00.

"Two W. O. W. jobs 'B' design, $66.00.

"Balance to be paid as Mr. Hill ships out his work, he to pay Winnsboro Corporation 10% (ten per cent.) of the contract price of the work; he to pay interest at 8% on the standing balance.

"The Winnsboro Granite Corporation agrees to sell and transfer to I. B. Hill the land, shed, tools and other equipments formerly owned by R. L. Beauchamp & Company, and viewed this day by R. L. Beauchamp, I. B. Hill and R. C. Brockington.

"Title to the property to remain in the hands of the Winnsboro Granite Corporation until purchase price is paid in full, when same will be turned over to I. B. Hill."

The defendant also alleged that it seized the property by reason of the fact that the plaintiff had caused it to be taken from Rion to Rockton and placed on board certain cars, for shipment beyond the limits of the state.

The jury rendered the following verdict:

" We find for plaintiff the property in dispute; the sum of fifty dollars actual damages, and the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars punitive damages; and as a special verdict we find that plaintiff is due defendant Winnsboro Corporation two hundred and eighty-three & 86/100 dollars on the mortgage debt."

The defendants appealed, and the first exception is as follows:

"(1) That his honor erred in his charge to the jury, in construing the agreement of sale introduced in evidence (Exhibit A) to be a chattel mortgage, and not a conditional sale, and that under said paper the defendants had no right to seize the property covered by same; the error being that under said agreement the defendant Winnsboro Granite Corporation retained the title to said property, and had the right to seize it upon the plaintiff attempting to remove it from the state under circumstances indicating to the minds of the defendants an attempt to fraudulently evade the payment of the purchase price."

The following authorities show that the instrument of writing is a mortgage or any instrument of writing in the nature of a mortgage with the incidents of a mortgage; Talmadge v. Oliver, 14 S.C. 522; Straub v. Screven, 19 S.C. 445; Herring v. Cannon, 21 S.C. 212, 53 Am. Rep. 661; Talbott v. Sandifer, 27 S.C. 624, 4 S.E. 152; Munroe v. Williams, 35 S.C. 572, 15 S.E. 279; Singer Co. v. Smith, 40 S.C. 529, 19 S.E. 132, 42 Am. St. Rep. 897; Perkins v. Bank, 43 S.C. 39, 20 S.E. 759; Quattlebaum v. Taylor, 45 S.C. 512, 23 S.E. 617; State v. Haynes, 74 S.C. 450, 55 S.E. 118.

The next question for consideration is whether there was error, on the part of his honor the presiding judge, in ruling that the mortgagee did not have the right to seize the property.

At the time of the...