People's Bank of Rock Hill v. People's Bank of Anderson

• Decision Date: 18 January 1923
• Docket Number: 11107.
• Parties: PEOPLE'S BANK OF ROCK HILL v. PEOPLE'S BANK OF ANDERSON.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

115 S.E. 736

122 S.C. 476

PEOPLE'S BANK OF ROCK HILL v. PEOPLE'S BANK OF ANDERSON.

No. 11107.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 18, 1923

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court, of York County; T. S. Sease Judge.

Claim and delivery by the People's Bank of Rock Hill against Williams & Co., wherein the People's Bank of Anderson intervened. From a decree in favor of plaintiff and defendants, intervener appeals. Affirmed.

Fraser and Cothran, JJ., dissenting.

The decree of the court below, referred to in the opinion, was as follows:

This is an action of claim and delivery brought against the defendants Williams & Co. August 8, 1921, to recover possession of 56 bales of cotton. Upon the service of the papers the property in dispute was taken by the sheriff of York county from the possession of Williams & Co. and sold after due advertisement. In due time the defendant People's Bank of Anderson, S. C., intervened, claiming rights as a third party in the property in dispute, and the question as to title to the cotton comes before me upon an agreed statement of fact.

The complaint alleges that in May, 1920, one Pat W. Major, a resident of Rock Hill, S. C., executed to plaintiff a crop mortgage in the sum of $11,000, covering crops raised on three tracts of land near Rock Hill, S. C.; that the 56 bales of cotton in dispute were grown upon these premises, and are covered by the lien of the plaintiff's mortgage; that in the month of November, 1920, this cotton was placed by Major in the warehouse operated by the defendants Williams & Co. at Rock Hill, S. C.; that the conditions of the crop mortgage have been broken, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the cotton in question from the defendants Williams & Co. who hold it as warehousemen. The defendants Williams & Co. interposed a general denial, alleging that they are in the position of stake holders, whose only interest is to see that the property in question is delivered to the true owners. The People's Bank of Anderson, S. C., intervener, by way of answer, alleges that the crop mortgage of the plaintiff is void because the description of the lands upon which the crops were grown is insufficient under section 4106 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, vol. 1, 1912; that the record of the chattel mortgage in the R. M. C. Office, York, S. C. pursuant to section 1356 of the Code of 1912 is insufficient in that the said section is unconstitutional as being in violation of article 3, § 34, subd. 11, of the Constitution of South Carolina, in that the said section is local and special legislation, where a general law is applicable.

The agreed statement of fact, upon which this controversy is before me for decision, sets forth that the claim of the Anderson Bank is based upon a transfer to it by Major of the warehouse receipts of Williams & Co. on December 14, 1920, in consideration of $5,000, of which amount $4,476.66 was past indebtedness, and $520.34 was present consideration. It is further recited that the mortgage of the plaintiff was properly executed, that the sum of $11,000, with interest and attorneys' fees, is due thereon, and that the said mortgage constitutes a valid lien on the cotton in question as between the plaintiff and Major. It is admitted that the 56 bales of cotton were stored by Major in the warehouse of Williams & Co. in three lots--25 bales November 22d, 25 bales November 22d, and 6 bales November 23d, 1920; that the officers of the plaintiff bank, upon learning that the receipts had been issued to Major, made every effort to have the receipts turned over to the plaintiff bank, but that Major delivered the receipts to the defendant bank as set forth above. It is further agreed that Williams & Co. occupy the position of warehousemen, being liable only to one of the said banks, and that upon the settlement of the issues as between the two banks, Williams & Co. will be absolved from further liability.

The description in the plaintiff's mortgage is as follows: "All crops of every nature and description, cotton, corn, and grain grown by or for me during 1920, either as croppers, wages, renters, or otherwise on the Stewart place, the Steele place, and the Fewell place, all about two miles north of Rock Hill, S. C." It appears that the mortgage was executed in York county, and that both the mortgagor and the mortgagee reside therein. The court will take judicial notice of the fact that Rock Hill is located in York county. Section 4106 of the Code provides that the land upon which crops are mortgaged must be "described or mentioned in said mortgage."

It is clear that this description, mentioning the plantations concerned and locating them two miles north of Rock Hill, S. C., is a sufficient description to comply with the terms of section 4106. Kimbrell v. Mills and Young, 100 S.C. 443.

Section 1356, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1912, vol. 1, provides as follows:

" Sufficient Registry Record of Chattel Mortgage of Crops.--It shall be sufficient registry and record of any chattel mortgage covering crop or crops without reference to the amount thereof, to enter upon an index book to be kept for that purpose by register of mesne conveyances the names of mortgagor and mortgagee, the amount and character of the debt secured and brief description of the crop pledged, also the year in which, and a brief description of the lands on which, such crops are cultivated, the date of the maturing of the debt and the date of filing such mortgage for record: Provided, however, if other chattels are included in a mortgage with crops and such mortgage is recorded in the regular way, such recording shall be sufficient notice of the crop mortgage without indexing same: Provided, that this act shall not apply to the counties of Sumter, Clarendon, Berkeley, Georgetown, Abbeville, Richland, Greenville, and Beaufort."

The crop mortgage here in question was proved in due form by affidavit of the subscribing witness, but was indexed by the clerk of court for York county, and not recorded. It is contended by the defendant bank that this indexing was not sufficient notice to it of the plaintiff's mortgage, because section 1356, providing for the indexing of crop mortgages, is unconstitutional, on the ground that it is special legislation, where a general law might be applicable.

It will be noted that the section in question proceeds...