Little v. Rivers

• Decision Date: 15 April 1936
• Docket Number: 14280.
• Citation: 185 S.E. 174,180 S.C. 149
• Parties: LITTLE et al. v. RIVERS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

185 S.E. 174

180 S.C. 149

LITTLE et al. v. RIVERS.

No. 14280.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 15, 1936

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Chesterfield County; W. H Townsend, Judge.

Action by J. L. Little and others, trading under the firm name and style of the J. L. Little & Co., against Louis H. Rivers wherein defendant filed a counterclaim. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

J Arthur Knight, of Chesterfield, for appellants.

Leppard & Leppard, of Chesterfield, for respondent.

STABLER Chief Justice.

In 1925, the plaintiffs brought this action, one at law, in which they alleged that the defendant was indebted to them on an open account in the sum of $224.55. By his answer, Rivers denied certain specific items in the account as stated, and pleaded by way of counterclaim that in the fall of 1920 he delivered to Little & Co., to be applied to his account three and one-half bales of cotton of the approximate value of $323.75, but that they failed to give him credit therefor. By agreement, the matter was referred to a special referee, who took the testimony offered by the parties and reported the facts to be as follows: That in 1920, the defendant was a sharecropper on the farm of one C. B. Brock, under a contract to receive for his labor one-half of the cotton produced thereon, "to be divided by the pound or by the dollar"; that seven bales from this farm were delivered by Brock to the plaintiffs at Morven, N. C., the entire value of which they credited as a partial payment on the debt which he owed them; that Brock had given to Little & Co. in 1920 a mortgage on his crops, including the one being worked on shares by Rivers, but that they had no notice of the defendant's interest in the cotton in question. From the facts found, the referee concluded and held that the plaintiffs, as a matter of law, acquired good title to the seven bales of cotton, and recommended that the counterclaim be dismissed and judgment given for the full amount sued for.

The matter, on defendant's exceptions to the report, was then heard by the late Hon. W. H. Townsend, circuit judge, who concurred in the referee's findings of fact, and sustained his conclusion that the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment against the defendant for the amount claimed in the complaint, but held that his conclusions of law in regard to the cotton were incorrect. We quote from the decree:

"The referee held, that inasmuch as plaintiff was given no notice of defendant's lien upon the cotton when it applied the cotton to Brock's debt, plaintiff acquired good title to the cotton, and is not required to account to defendant for his one half interest therein. Citing DuRant v. Home Bank, 129 S.C.

...