Lott v. Claussens, Inc., 18828
| Citation | 251 S.C. 478,163 S.E.2d 615 |
| Decision Date | 30 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 18828,18828 |
| Parties | Mary G. LOTT, Respondent, v. CLAUSSENS, INC., and J. E. Sanders, Appellants. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Turner, Padget, Graham & Laney, Columbia, for appellants.
Blatt, Fales & Peeples, Barnwell, for respondent.
Plaintiff brought this action in Barnwell County against the defendant Claussens, Inc., and its driver to recover for personal injuries sustained in a collision in that county with one of Claussens' trucks. The sole question for decision is whether Claussens owns property in Barnwell County within the meaning of Section 10--421 of the 1962 Code of Laws, as amended in 1964, so as to sustain venue of the action there.
Section 10--421, as amended, provides that a corporation, domestic or foreign, may be sued in any county in which it 'shall own property and transact business,' Claussens, admitting that it transacted business in Barnwell County, denied that it owned property therein and moved to have venue transferred to Richland County upon that ground. The circuit judge denied the motion, holding that the unqualified right which defendant held to use certain display racks to sell its products in Barnwell County constituted the ownership of property in the county for venue purposes. We agree.
Claussens, a foreign corporation duly domesticated in South Carolina, is engaged in the baking business and sells its products at wholesale to retail grocery stores located in Barnwell County. It is a member of the South Carolina Bakers' Council whose sole function is the promotion of the sale of bakery products. The Council is organized as an eleemosynary corporation and various baking companies, including Claussens, support its activities as dues paying 'members.' In addition to its other activities, the Council owns and furnishes certain bread racks or counters which it places in various retail stores for use by its members in displaying their bakery products for sale. Although these bread racks are originally paid for by the Council and, under the testimony, remain its property, the members, who use them for the display and sale of their products in the retail stores, reimburse the Council for their total cost. In return the member has the right to use the rack for the display and sale of its bakery products in the retail stores. Admittedly, Claussens had such right to use a number of these racks or counters in Barnwell County and was engaged in the use of them for the display of its products at the time of the institution of this action.
We have held that the word 'property' within the meaning of the foregoing section, is not confined to tangible or corporeal objects, but 'is a general term to designate the right of ownership; and includes every subject, of whatever nature,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whaley v. CSX Transp., Inc.
...that venue was proper in a county where a foreign corporation owned property and transacted business. Lott v. Claussens, Inc., 251 S.C. 478, 480, 163 S.E.2d 615, 616-17 (1968). The Court reached this decision by relying exclusively on the 1964 service statute, without a single citation to t......
-
Jolly v. General Accident Group
...language in the Gibbes case is quoted with approval by the South Carolina Supreme Court in the more recent case of Lott v. Claussens, Inc., 251 S.C. 478, 136 S.E.2d 615, 617. In Gasque v. Town of Conway, 194 S.C. 15, 8 S.E.2d 871, in construing the word "property", the Supreme Court said, a......
-
Asbestosis Cases 78-CP-06-105, In re
...occasions that the question of whether venue is proper is to be determined at the time the action is instituted. Lott v. Claussens, Inc., 251 S.C. 478, 163 S.E.2d 615 (1968); Burris Chem., Inc. v. Daniel Constr. Co., 251 S.C. 483, 163 S.E.2d 618 (1968). Since venue is an attempt to provide ......
-
Long v. Baldt
...legal estate to the mortgagee, yet such mortgagee has an equitable interest which should be protected;" and in Lott v. Claussens, Inc., 251 S.C. 478, 163 S.E.2d 615, 617 (1968), the South Carolina Supreme Court held that the defendant's right to display its bread on bread racks owned by a b......