Morris v. Peoples Baking Co.

• Decision Date: 27 October 1939
• Docket Number: 14949.
• Citation: 5 S.E.2d 286,191 S.C. 501
• Parties: MORRIS v. PEOPLES BAKING CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

5 S.E.2d 286

191 S.C. 501

MORRIS v. PEOPLES BAKING CO.

No. 14949.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 27, 1939

Lide & Felder and Louis Rosen, all of Orangeburg, for appellant.

Hinds & Gayle, of Kingstree, for respondent.

BAKER Justice.

This action in tort was commenced in the Court of Common Pleas for Williamsburg County by respondent against appellant.

In due course, after service of the summons and complaint in the action (the record does not disclose where nor upon whom the summons was served, but no question is made of this) appellant served notice of motion to transfer the case from the County of Williamsburg to the County of Orangeburg on the ground that appellant (a domestic corporation) is a citizen and resident of the last named County.

The motion was heard on affidavits by the Circuit Judge, and refused.

In behalf of appellant an affidavit of R. H. Jennings, Jr., was submitted. This affidavit was to the effect that deponent was the secretary-treasurer of appellant, a South Carolina corporation, the manufacturer of Mell-O-Krust bread and other baking products; that appellant does not now, and has never had a place of business or offices, or maintained agents, in any other town or county except the County of Orangeburg that in the town of Kingstree, in the County of Williamsburg appellant employs three salesmen who reside there, but that such salesmen make all of their reports to, and transact all of the business with appellant within the City of Orangeburg; that appellant has a garage rented in the town of Kingstree for the purpose of keeping three trucks owned by it and which are used exclusively by the three travelling salesmen who sell and distribute its bread products; that Orangeburg County is the only place of residence of appellant.

In behalf of respondent, George B. Hammet, a policeman in Kingstree, the County seat of Williamsburg County, made an affidavit in which he set forth that he is familiar with the manner in which appellant handles the sale and distribution of its products; that appellant regularly hauls and delivers bread and other kinds of bakery products to a warehouse in the town of Kingstree by motor-truck; that after said bread is deposited in the warehouse it is then placed on three smaller trucks operated by said appellant to be shipped and distributed for sale throughout and over the County of Williamsburg; that the appellant employs three men in the delivery and distribution of its products, that all three men so employed in the delivery and distribution of its products are residents of the town of Kingstree, County of Williamsburg; that one of the trucks so used by appellant in this capacity is in charge of and driven by a Mr. Johnny Foxworth; that the truck so used by the said Johnny Foxworth has his name on the side of the said truck and the word "agent" written thereunder along with the trade-name Mell-O-Krust bread which advertises the products of appellant.

After briefly reciting the facts as disclosed by the affidavits used on the hearing, the order of the Circuit Judge continues:

"I am of the opinion that the above set forth facts support the position of the plaintiff that defendant has an agent and conducts its corporate business and, therefore, may be sued in Williamsburg County, as in this case."

There is only one question in this...