Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp. v. Platt

• Decision Date: 28 August 1961
• Docket Number: No. 17829,17829
• Citation: 239 S.C. 103,121 S.E.2d 351
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: UNIVERSAL C. I. T. CREDIT CORPORATION, Respondent, v. Bertha PLATT, Appellant.

Page 351

121 S.E.2d 351

239 S.C. 103

UNIVERSAL C. I. T. CREDIT CORPORATION, Respondent, v. Bertha PLATT, Appellant.

No. 17829.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Aug. 28, 1961.

H. T. Abbott, Conway, for appellant.

Burroughs & Green, Conway, for respondent.

TAYLOR, Chief Justice.

This appeal from the County Court of Horry County arises out of an action brought for a deficiency judgment under a conditional sales contract.

The complaint alleges the contract, default therein, the repossession and sale of the truck and the deficiency result in the amount of $193.10, which is sought plus attorneys' fees.

The answer admits the purchase of the truck under the contract of sale but denies that it was sold for the best price obtainable or that it was repossessed and further denies that there was owing the amount claimed and attorneys' fees. For a further defense, by way of counterclaim, it is alleged that plaintiff converted the truck to its own use by its sale on or about July 15, 1955, after having agreed to extend the time of payment for a period of thirty days. For a third defense, defendant alleges that conversion and sale of the automobile barred her equity of redemption and thereby extinguished plaintiff's lien, and that the truck was sold for less than its actual value.

Plaintiff by way of reply to the counterclaim admitted the extension of thirty days but denied a sale in July, 1955, alleging that the extension was granted April 8, 1955, and the sale was on June 16, 1955, after notice was mailed to defendant by certified mail and delivered to her on June 10, 1955.

Defendant moved for a nonsuit at the end of plaintiff's testimony, and plaintiff moved for a directed verdict when all testimony had been completed. Both motions were refused and the case submitted to the jury who returned a verdict for the defendant in the sum of $500, actual damages, and $1,000, punitive damages. Plaintiff thereupon moved for judgment non obstante veredicto, or, in the alternative, for a new trial.

The Presiding Judge by Order of June 20, 1960, granted plaintiff's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto in the amount of $220, together with costs; and defendant now appeals, contending, first, that the trial Judge erred in granting plaintiff's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto in that the testimony raised issues of fact for the jury.

Defendant purchased the truck in question from Hunter Auto Sales, Inc., of Conway, South Carolina, in 1954. Subsequent thereto, in 1955, she became delinquent in her payments under the contract which had been sold by the Hunter Auto Sales, Inc., to Universal C. I. T. Credit Corporation.

After being contacted concerning the overdue payments, defendant delivered the truck, through her son, to the Hunter Auto Sales, Inc., whose storage receipt bears the date April 8, 1955.

Mr. Hunter testified he attended the sale on June 16, 1955, at which time Universal C. I. T. Credit Corporation bid the truck in for $160 then sold it to him for $300, with the defendant being given credit for $300, less $3 expense of sale.

The notice of sale introduced into the record was dated June 9, 1955, with notice that the truck would be sold at 3 P. M., on June 16, 1955, at Hunter Auto Sales, Conway, South Carolina. Attached to the notice of sale is a certified mail receipt, postmarked as being received June 10, 1955, by Mrs. Bertha Platt. On the back of the notice of sale was the certificate of Deputy Sheriff D. P. Small that the truck was sold at public auction at 3 P. M., June 16, 1955, to Universal C. I. T. Credit Corporation for the sum of $160.

Defendant testified that after she became delinquent in payments she sent the truck in by her son, Robert, in May but could not remember the exact date. When questioned about the thirty day extension, she stated, 'Seems like it was June or July, I don't remember' but it was about a week before her son, Robert, had defficulty with his wife. She identified her signature on the answer but refused to identify the signature on the return receipt as being hers but would not state it was not her signature.

The son, Robert, testified he brought the truck in to the Hunter Auto Sales, Inc., the first or second week in May and then came back three weeks to a month later and got a thirty day extension. Later he testified that the thirty day extension was granted on the 9th or 10th of July and related this date to the difficulty he had with his wife. Thus there appears a contradiction in his own testimony as to the time the thirty day extension was granted. He further...