Joseph v. Shahid
| Citation | 167 S.E. 673,168 S.C. 469 |
| Decision Date | 02 February 1933 |
| Docket Number | 13570. |
| Parties | JOSEPH v. SHAHID. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Charleston County; William H. Grimball, Judge.
Action by Louis Joseph against W. S. Shahid. From an order refusing to transfer the case for trial to another county, defendant appeals.
Affirmed in part, and reversed in part on condition.
Baker & Baker, of Florence, for appellant.
Logan & Grace, of Charleston, for respondent.
This case, based upon two promissory notes, was commenced on February 9, 1932, in the court of common pleas for Charleston county, by service of the summons and complaint on the defendant in Timmonsville, Florence county.
The defendant moved before his honor, Judge Grimball, for an order transferring the case for trial from Charleston county to Florence county, on the ground that the defendant was a resident of Florence county and not of Charleston county. That motion being refused, the defendant appealed from the order of the circuit judge thereon to this court.
The defendant, in an affidavit submitted by him, swore that he was "not a resident and citizen of Charleston County but of Florence County, S. C., and has been for more than a year."
The complaint was verified by the plaintiff in person. To his own knowledge, the plaintiff swore that the defendant was a resident of the city of Charleston, county of Charleston state of South Carolina.
One of the attorneys for the plaintiff made an affidavit that, "according to his best information and belief," the defendant resides in the city of Charleston at No. 59 Vanderhorst street; that his name appeared in the directories of the city of Charleston as a resident of that city at the same place for the years 1930, 1931, and 1932. No objection was made at the hearing before the circuit judge as to the competency of the affidavit of plaintiff's attorney. If objection had been made, in all probability the circuit judge would have ruled the affidavit incompetent, since it was merely "hearsay."
The question as to the place of residence of the defendant was mainly one of fact. When there was evidence to support the finding of the circuit judge that the defendant was a resident of the county of Charleston, we cannot disturb that finding. The positive sworn statement of the plaintiff that the defendant was a resident of Charleston county, and the corroborative evidence contained in the affidavit of plaintiff's counsel, was sufficient to support the finding of the circuit judge.
The appeal from the refusal to transfer the case cannot, therefore, be sustained.
The note sued on in the first cause of action was set out in the complaint as follows:
The note sued on in the second cause of action was similar in form and tenor to the note sued on in the first cause of action, except as to the date of maturity. That note matured "Nov. 15th after date."
The defendant interposed a demurrer to both causes of action, on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, in that the notes sued on and set out in the complaint showed on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Payne v. Cohen
-
St. Clair v. St. Clair
...support it (Barfield v. J. L. Coker & Co., supra; LeHardy, Thesmar & Co. v. Dibble, 80 S.C. 482, 61 S.E. 950)." Again, in Joseph v. Shadid, 168 S.C. 469, 167 S.E. 673, court used the following language: "The question as to the place of residence of the defendant was mainly one of fact. When......