Merchants' & Planters' Bank v. Brigman

• Decision Date: 10 February 1917
• Docket Number: 9605.
• Citation: 91 S.E. 332,106 S.C. 362
• Parties: MERCHANTS' & PLANTERS' BANK v. BRIGMAN ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

91 S.E. 332

106 S.C. 362

MERCHANTS' & PLANTERS' BANK v. BRIGMAN ET AL.

No. 9605.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 10, 1917

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Dillon County; T. J Mauldin, Judge.

Action of claim and delivery by the Merchants' & Planters' Bank against M. W. Brigman and S. V. Lane, as sheriff of Dillon county. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Lane excepts and appeals. Reversed.

Gibson & Muller, of Dillon, and Hoyt McMillan, of Mullins, for appellant.

Joe P Lane and G. G. McLaurin, both of Dillon, for respondent.

WATTS J.

This is an appeal from an order and decree of his honor, Judge Mauldin, who heard the case at Dillon county court of common pleas at the fall term of court, 1915, and filed his decision February 8, 1916. The brief has the following statement:

"This was an action for the recovery of the possession of personal property accompanied by regular claim and delivery proceedings and commenced by the service of a summons and complaint on or about the 28th day of November 1914. The affidavit and bond for claim and delivery were the usual affidavit and bond for claim and delivery action, and the automobile was duly seized and taken from Sheriff S. V. Lane under the action. S. V. Lane, sheriff of Dillon county, answered and resisted the action, and the case came on for hearing on its merits before Judge T. J. Mauldin and a jury the 18th day of October, 1915. During the progress of the case counsel for both sides agreed to take all issues away from the jury with the exception of the question of value of the property involved, and submit all other facts and law to the court for its determination. On the question submitted to the jury, they found the value of the property (one Ford automobile) to be $125. The judge reserved his decision until the 8th day of February, 1916, when he rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery of the property or the value thereof, $125."

The defendant Sheriff S. V. Lane gave due notice of appeal, and the case comes on for a hearing before this court on the case and exceptions.

The legal issues raised by the exceptions are: First. Whether or not, plaintiff's mortgage being past due and the legal as well as the equitable title having vested in it to the property in question, it was entitled to the possession thereof. Second. Did the plaintiff pursue the wrong remedy? Third. Is the act in question valid?

Ordinarily when a chattel mortgage is past due and there is anything due thereon, the title vests in the mortgagee, and the owner and holder of the mortgage is entitled to the possession of the mortgaged property. If there was not the act of the Legislature in reference to automobiles which is relied on in this case to controvert this view, this point would be free from difficulty, as the numerous decisions of this court decide this question in the affirmative.

This act is full and comprehensive, and is as follows:

"An act to further regulate the running of motor vehicles in this state.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of South Carolina: When a motor vehicle is operated in violation of the provisions of law, or negligently and carelessly, and when any person receives personal injury thereby, or when a buggy or wagon or other property is damaged thereby, the damages done to such person or property shall be and constitute a lien next in priority to the lien for state and county taxes upon such motor vehicle, recoverable in any court of competent jurisdiction, and the person sustaining such damages shall have a right to attach said motor vehicle in the manner provided by law for attachments in this state: Provided, that this act shall not be effective in case the motor vehicle shall have been stolen by the breaking of a building under a secure lock, or when the vehicle is securely locked."

Act 1912 (27 St. at Large, p. 737).

The plaintiff-respondent contends that this act is unconstitutional and void in that it is in violation of article 1, § 5, of the Constitution of South Carolina; also in violation of section 17 of article 3 of the Constitution of South Carolina, and in violation of a portion of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. We do not think that contention of the respondent that the act is unconstitutional and void can be sustained.

The Legislature has the inherent police power to pass any law it judges fit for the...