Ladshaw v. Hoskins

• Decision Date: 13 March 1944
• Docket Number: 15630.
• Parties: LADSHAW v. HOSKINS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

29 S.E.2d 480

204 S.C. 346

LADSHAW v. HOSKINS.

No. 15630.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 13, 1944

Jesse W. Boyd, of Spartanburg, for appellant.

R B. Paslay, of Spartanburg, for respondent.

BAKER Chief Justice.

This action was for the ejectment of the tenant of a nine-room house at No. 121 Alabama Street, City of Spartanburg, which house was occupied by Mrs. Curtis Hoskins, her infant child and her mother-in-law, Mrs. Maude Hoskins, as a home, and six of the rooms were rented to various people, so the house was predominantly a commercial enterprise.

Mrs. Curtis Hoskins is the wife of a soldier, and she and her husband lived there in the beginning as roomers subrenting from Mr. and Mrs. A. E. Brackens who were then the tenants. At that time Mr. Hoskins was at Camp Croft, but in December, 1941, he was transferred to another Camp without the State of South Carolina. At some time between June 19 1941, the date Mrs. Curtis Hoskins commenced to live in the house under discussion as a roomer, and September 5, 1941, Mr. Curtis Hoskins bought from the Brackens the furniture in the house, and through a rental agency representing Wofford College, the then owner of the property, rented the house and premises at a monthly rental of $75.

In September, 1941, Mrs. Maude Hoskins, the mother of Curtis Hoskins, moved to Spartanburg from Louisville, Ky., since which time she and her daughter-in-law have been occupying the house. Mrs. Maude Hoskins has assisted Mrs. Curtis Hoskins in the renting of the rooms in the house, and on occasions has carried the rental money to the rental agency in charge of the property.

On October 24, 1942, an agreement was entered into by and between H. B. Carlisle, Chairman (representing the Board of Trustees of Wofford College), and Mrs. Lula E. Ladshaw, the appellant herein, whereby Mrs. Ladshaw agreed to purchase the property under discussion; and pursuant to this agreement, Mrs. Ladshaw purchased the property, and deed from the Trustees of Wofford College to her was duly executed and delivered on November 13, 1942.

It is inferable from the testimony and exhibits that prompt notice was given to Mrs. Curtis Hoskins of the change in ownership of the property, and that possession thereof would be required by the new owner (the appellant herein) within thirty days. And again on December 4, 1942, Mrs. Curtis Hoskins was notified in writing that Mrs. Ladshaw was obliged to have possession on December 18, 1942. In addition to the notices to Mrs. Curtis Hoskins, on November 18, 1942, I. B. Magness, the real estate agent who handled the transaction for Mrs. Ladshaw, notified Mrs. Maude Hoskins that possession of the premises would be required within thirty days from the date of the sale of the property.

Following these notices, Mrs. Maude Hoskins undertook to find a house in which to move, but could not find one suitable, that is, large enough to accommodate the furniture of Mrs. Curtis Hoskins, and later when she was advised by some unnamed lawyer that she had ninety days in which to move, she took the position that she would not get out until she could find a house large enough to rent rooms. On the day before the ejectment proceedings were commenced, Mrs. Maude Hoskins refused to move until she could find a house with the same number of rooms as the one she then occupied. Mrs. Curtis Hoskins' native language is Spanish, and for this reason Mrs. Maude Hoskins assumed the role of tenant or party in possession of the premises, though we think it clear that Mrs. Curtis Hoskins was the tenant or party in possession; and that while Mrs. Maude Hoskins was purporting to speak for herself, she was in fact speaking for Mrs. Curtis Hoskins.

On January 6, 1943, upon the application of Mrs. Ladshaw, the appellant herein, and pursuant to Section 8813 of the 1942 Code of Laws of South Carolina, Honorable D. W. Galloway, Magistrate at Spartanburg, issued a Rule to Show Cause, returnable on the fourth day after service, directed to Mrs. Curtis Hoskis (Hoskins), why she should not be ejected from the premises, to wit: that certain nine-room dwelling house, located at 121 Alabama Street, Spartanburg, S. C.

Mrs. Curtis Hoskins made Return thereto, as follows:

"1. That the premises now seeking to be recovered by Mrs. Lula E. Ladshaw, landlord, were rented by her husband approximately two years ago, who is now in the United States Army and out of the State of South Carolina, and is serving in said military service of the United States, the said premises having been rented by him primarily for family purposes, namely, for his wife, Curtis Hoskins, his mother and child.

2. That under the provisions of Office of Price Administration no sufficient notice has been given for the eviction or ejectment from said premises, in that sufficient time was not given and the grounds for eviction as required by said Act have not been sufficiently and definitely set out.

3. Because the tenant, C. Hoskins, is in the military service of the United States, and the premises were occupied and rented for his wife, child and mother for dwelling purposes and the rental therefor does not exceed eighty ($8

...