Johnson v. Hall, No. 15852.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | STUKES, Justice |
| Citation | 38 S.E.2d 708 |
| Parties | JOHNSON. v. HALL et al. |
| Decision Date | 21 June 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 15852. |
38 S.E.2d 708
JOHNSON.
v.
HALL et al.
No. 15852.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
June 21, 1946.
Appeal from Common Pleas Court of Richland County; A. L. Gaston, Judge.
Attachment proceeding by Lee Johnson against Willie Hall and one 1938 Buick Automobile, S. C. License E-7818. From a judgment in the court of magistrate an appeal was taken to the court of common pleas where the judgment was reversed, and the plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
John E. Edens, of Columbia, for appellant.
T. Pou Taylor, of Columbia, for respondent
STUKES, Justice.
This action was an attachment proceeding in a court of magistrate for Richland County. Affidavit and bond were filed by appellant on September 20, 1943, whereupon summons was issued against the personal respondent and the defendant automobile. The case was tried before the magistrate without a jury on the 28th of November following and he rendered judgment for plaintiff (now appellant) for $100 and costs.
At the trial respondents appeared by attorney who moved to dismiss the attachment upon the ground of alleged insufficiency of the warrant and upon adverse ruling and after judgment, respondents
[38 S.E.2d 709]prosecuted an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County. On September 27, 1945 that court reversed the judgment of the magistrate for the stated reason that the affidavit, quoting, "alleges no facts to show the negligent operation of said automobile, but contains only conclusions of the plaintiff." The cited authority of Woodworth v. Skeen, 153 S.C. 362, 150 S.E. 764, was relied upon. Appeal upon an appropriate exception brings up for review the latter order.
The decision on circuit was made without apparent reference to section 551 of the Code of 1942, subsection (1) of which is in part as follows:
"In all cases of attachments in this State the following forms, affidavits, and bond shall be sufficient, to-wit:
State of South Carolina,
Court of ------------
____________Plaintiff, ____________against_____________Defendant.
Affidavit
Personally appeared before me ---------------- who on oath says:
That--is justly and truly indebted to ----------------in the sum of--------($----) dollars, and that----is entitled to an attachment against----upon the grounds:
Sworn to before me this the---- day of---- 19-- ____________ ____________ ___________"
The affidavit, attacked for insufficiency, was as follows:
"State of South Carolina, Court of:
County of Richland. Ollie Mefford,
Magistrate.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Melton v. Walker, No. 15884.
...state a cause of action for attachment and otherwise meet the requirements of the statutes. The recent authority of Johnson v. Hall, S.C, 38 S.E.2d 708, decided June 21, 1946, need only be cited. The Civil and Criminal Court of Charleston and the Court of Common Pleas erred when they conclu......
-
Cockrell v. Sedan, No. 16121.
...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 circui......
-
Fruehauf Trailer Co. v. South Carolina Elec. & Gas Co., No. 16737
...operation of the power unit of which it has been made a part. The intent of the statute is well stated in Johnson v. Hall, 208 S.C. 534, 38 S.E.2d 708, 710: 'Negligent and careless operation of a motor vehicle, whereby damage to person[223 S.C. 326] or property proximately results, creates ......
-
State v. Simmons, No. 15854.
...if there is a reasonable doubt on that in your minds, why then he would have failed to establish his plea of self-defense."[38 S.E.2d 708] The last-quoted portion of the charge was erroneous. If there was merely a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury whether the appellant had esta......
-
Melton v. Walker, No. 15884.
...state a cause of action for attachment and otherwise meet the requirements of the statutes. The recent authority of Johnson v. Hall, S.C, 38 S.E.2d 708, decided June 21, 1946, need only be cited. The Civil and Criminal Court of Charleston and the Court of Common Pleas erred when they conclu......
-
Cockrell v. Sedan, No. 16121.
...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 circui......
-
Fruehauf Trailer Co. v. South Carolina Elec. & Gas Co., No. 16737
...operation of the power unit of which it has been made a part. The intent of the statute is well stated in Johnson v. Hall, 208 S.C. 534, 38 S.E.2d 708, 710: 'Negligent and careless operation of a motor vehicle, whereby damage to person[223 S.C. 326] or property proximately results, creates ......
-
State v. Simmons, No. 15854.
...if there is a reasonable doubt on that in your minds, why then he would have failed to establish his plea of self-defense."[38 S.E.2d 708] The last-quoted portion of the charge was erroneous. If there was merely a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury whether the appellant had esta......