Segars v. Segars

• Decision Date: 08 March 1909
• Citation: 63 S.E. 891,82 S.C. 196
• Parties: SEGARS v. SEGARS et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

63 S.E. 891

82 S.C. 196

SEGARS v. SEGARS et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 8, 1909

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Darlington County; R. C Watts, Judge.

Action by Donaldson L. Segars against William R. Segars and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded.

Miller & Lawson, for appellants.

Macfarlan & Thornwell, for respondent.

GARY A. J.

This is an action in claim and delivery. The plaintiff alleges: That at the time mentioned in the complaint he was lawfully possessed of certain products of the farm described therein and that the said crops were then, and are now, the property of said plaintiff. "That on the 10th day of October 1907, the defendants on said lands unlawfully took said goods and chattels from the possession of this plaintiff under a pretensive distrait, and still unjustly detain the same to the damage of this plaintiff in the sum of $500." The answer of the defendants, after denying the allegations of the complaint, alleged "that on the 12th day of October thereafter said property was taken from defendants by the sheriff of Darlington county, said state, under and by virtue of the undertaking affidavit and requisition thereupon indorsed, in the case of H. R. Segars, as administrator plaintiff, against Donaldson Segars, W. R. Segars, and D. F. Morrison, defendants, now pending in this court, and said property has ever since been, and still is, out of the possession and beyond the control of the defendants, or either of them." The jury rendered the following verdict: "We find that the plaintiff is entitled to all of the property sued for in this case, and in the event that the said property has been disposed of, and cannot be found, that the plaintiff recover from the defendant, the value of the property which we find is $292.56." The defendants appealed from said judgment.

The principal question presented by the exception is whether his honor, the presiding judge, erred in refusing to allow the defendants to introduce testimony to sustain the allegations set out in their answer, and in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff; the only question submitted to the jury being as to the amount of damages which the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The allegations of the answer show that the property was not in the possession of the defendants at the time this action was commenced, to wit, on the 14th day of October,...