Thompson v. Rutland, 16893
| Decision Date | 19 July 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 16893,16893 |
| Citation | 225 S.C. 485,83 S.E.2d 163 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. RUTLAND. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Jesse W. Boyd, Spartanburg, for appellant.
George F. Abernathy and Paul S. McChesney, Jr., Spartanburg, for respondent.
Respondent, an illiterate farm hand, was employed by appellant farm-owner ar thirty cents per hour for a sixty-hour week and was furnished a two-room house in which he, his pregnant wife and four children lived; he was paid proportionately when he 'made' more or less than sixty hours during a week. Respondent quit work about November 1st; appellant took his fuel, upon which he owed a small balance, shut off water and lights from the house, and when respondent did not immediately vacate, brought ejectment proceedings on Nov. 5, and pending the return date in the court of magistrate he distrained for rent upon respondent's furniture, which was not exempt from such process.
Respondent and his wife appeared on the ejectment return date before the magistrate who then announced, in effect, that they had not shown sufficient cause why they should not be ejected but, according to the testimony, 'gave five days' from the date of the hearing, which was November 16, in which to move. It appears to be conceded that this had reference to the five days in which respondent may have appealed from the Magistrate's judgment of eviction and that respondent could not have been legally evicted within five days after an effective judgment of eviction. The following November 27 the magistrate issued his order which is not in the appeal record but presumably was a proper warrant of ejectment. (Unfortunately, the magistrate died before trial of this action.) The issuance of such is provided by the terms of section 41-104 of the Code of 1952, Landlord and Tenant, which provides, in such a case as this, that, quoting, 'The magistrate shall issue a warrant of ejectment and the tenant shall be ejected,' etc. (Emphasis added.) This clearly contemplates the issuance of a written warrant and an oral pronouncement of the magistrate cannot reasonably be deemed to be the equivalent of this statutory requirement. This conclusion will dispose of the appeal, in the main, as will be seen.
Respondent and his wife testified that they left the house for lack of fuel and water before the hearing in the magistrate's court, and he went back with a truck within five days afterward and found that the door of the house was secured by a padlock, so that he could not enter and remove his belongings. Thereafter he returned to the house and discovered that the most of his furniture, his bedding, bed linen and clothes had been placed in the yard, exposed to repeated rains by which it was damaged. Other evidence established that later appellant had another farm hand haul the castout furniture, bedding, etc, to another of his farms in a different county, where it was stored in a barn. This other farm hand was the son-in-law of respondent but there is no evidence that he acted in behalf of respondent, and he was still in the employ of appellant at the time of the trial of this action.
The magistrate's constable testified that he distrained respondent's property on November 13, he having before served the ejectment notice on November 5. He further testified that he executed the warrant of ejectment on November 29 and set respondent's 'stuff' in the back yard, after which he secured the house with a lock which he thought appellant had sent for the purpose. It is noted again that the written authorization of the magistrate for the ejectment of respondent was dated Nov. 27. The conceded five days had only one-fifth run upon the execution of the warrant--this under the evidence offered by appellant.
The action was for damages for conversion of the personalty, consisting of the household goods, clothing, etc., of respondent other than that which had been distrained for rent. The defense was, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Life Ins. Co. of Ga.
...the testimony and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff's case. Thompson v. Rutland, 225 S.C. 485, 83 S.E.2d 163; Fagan v. Timmons, 215 S.C. 116, 54 S.E.2d The plaintiff, in addition to policies with other companies, had two policies wi......
-
Long v. McMillan, 16978
...by its terms.' Also of interest on the subject is State v. Nathans, 49 S.C. 199, 27 S.E. 52. In the recent case of Thompson v. Rutland, S.C., 83 S.E.2d 163, 165, this Court stated with reference to the effect of an oral pronouncement by a magistrate in an ejectment 'The crux of the case, as......