Singer Mfg. Co. v. Smith

• Decision Date: 07 March 1894
• Citation: 19 S.E. 132,40 S.C. 529
• Parties: SINGER MANUF'G CO. v. SMITH.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

19 S.E. 132

40 S.C. 529

SINGER MANUF'G CO. v. SMITH.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 7, 1894

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Darlington county; James F. Izlar, Judge.

Action of claim and delivery by the Singer Manufacturing Company against Raiford Smith to recover possession of a sewing machine, commenced before a trial justice, and taken on appeal by defendant to the circuit court of common pleas. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Ward & Woods, for appellant.

Dargan & Thompson, for respondent.

McGOWAN J.

The circuit judge who heard this case states that the action was brought in the court of a trial justice to recover the possession of a sewing machine, alleged to be the property of the plaintiff and wrongfully withheld or detained by the defendant after demand. The trial was had before the trial justice without a jury, upon the following instrument, viz.:

"Lease. This certifies that I, Raiford Smith, now residing in the town of Darlington, state of South Carolina, have received of the Singer Manufacturing Company one Singer sewing machine (describing it), with apparatus belonging thereto all in good order, and valued at fifty-five dollars, which I am to use with care, and keep in like good order, and for the use of which I agree to pay as follows: Ten dollars on the delivery of this agreement, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, and accepted as payment for the rent of the first month only, and then at the rate of three dollars per month, payable in advance, on the 22d day of each month hereafter for fifteen months, at its agency in Darlington, S. C., without notice or demand. But if default shall be made in either of said payments, or if I shall sell or offer to sell, remove or attempt to remove the said machine from my aforesaid residence without the written consent of the said company, then and in that case I agree to return the same, and that it or its agent may renew actual possession thereof; and I hereby authorize and empower the said company, or its agent, to enter the premises wherever said machine may be, and take and carry the same away, hereby waiving any action for trespass or damages therefor, and disclaiming any right of resistance thereto; and also waive all right of homestead and other exemptions, under the laws of the state, as against this obligation. Witness my hand and seal this February 22 1890. [Signed] Raiford Smith. [L. S.]

"Attest: George F. Rogers.

"Notice to parties signing this lease: Read the terms of this lease before signing it, as no statement or agreement or understanding, verbal or written, not contained herein, will be recognized by us. [Signed] The Singer Manufacturing Company."

"(1) The defendant answered orally in the trial justice court: That defendant bought machine, which was guarantied; that defendant has already paid on the machine $32.50, which is more than it is worth; that it is an old second-hand machine. (2) That, although the paper sued on is claimed to be a 'lease,' yet in law it is only a chattel mortgage given to secure this debt; and that, even if it should be held to be a conditional sale, and the title remain in the lender, defendant cannot be held to deliver up the property, if it is not as represented, until the vendor puts him in possession of the money already paid."

Testimony was admitted, over objections, tending to show that the machine was warranted, and the warranty was broken, the machine being, as alleged, an old "second-hand instrument," not worth the money already paid for it. The trial justice held that the title to the property was in the plaintiff company, and gave judgment for the delivery of it to them, without any regard to the payments...