Warren v. Smith
| Decision Date | 15 March 1939 |
| Docket Number | 14843. |
| Citation | 1 S.E.2d 900,190 S.C. 8 |
| Parties | WARREN v. SMITH et al. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Paul T. Chance, of Augusta, Ga., and Brown & Watts and Thos M. Boulware, all of Barnwell, for appellant.
W Inman Curry, of Augusta, Ga., and Williams & Busbee, of Aiken, for respondent.
The plaintiff-appellant lives in Colleton County, South Carolina. The defendant-respondent, Robert L. Smith, lives in Aiken County, South Carolina, and his codefendant-respondent is a foreign corporation and maintains a resident agent with office in Barnwell County, South Carolina, for the transaction of its business.
The transcript of record before this Court is a brief complaint notice of a motion to transfer the case from Barnwell County to Aiken County, the county where the respondent Smith resides, because of such residence in Aiken County; and the order of Judge Dennis transferring the case for trial from Barnwell to Aiken County, in which the reason for transferring the case is stated, as follows:
The order appealed from also contains a statement of an agreement between litigants, which we set out below: "It is agreed between the parties that the respondents neither answered nor demurred, it being agreed that twenty days be allowed respondents after the filing of the Judge's order to plead to the complaint herein; it is now further agreed that respondents shall have twenty days after the filing of any order disposing of this case on appeal in which to plead, as they may see fit, to the complaint herein."
The exception of appellant is as follows: "That his Honor erred in not holding that the defendant corporation had established a legal residence in Barnwell County, by having an office and agent in said county for the transaction of its business, and, the cause of action being against the defendants jointly, the plaintiff had a right to maintain the action in Barnwell County where it was brought."
We are not passing upon the jurisdiction of the South Carolina Courts; nor whether the complaint states a cause of action; nor the nature of the cause of action, if any, stated. We confine our decision to the sole issue before the Court at this time--that is, the proper venue of an action between the parties to this suit. Stated in another way, and following the statement of an identical issue in the case of Tucker v. Ingram et al., Tucker v. Pure Oil Co. of the Carolinas, 187 S.C. 525, 198 S.E. 25, 27; Was the trial Judge in error in changing the place of trial from Barnwell County to Aiken County where it appears the personal defendant is a resident of Aiken County, when the corporate defendant, a non-resident of South Carolina, maintains an office and agent in Barnwell County for the transaction of its business?
Convenience of witnesses is not a question involved.
The issue herein appears to have been definitely settled against respondents by the Tucker-Ingram case, supra. We quote from the opinion in that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Windham v. Pace
... ... Since ... the recent decisions of this Court in Tucker v. Ingram, 187 ... S.C. 525, 198 S.E. 25, and Warren v. Smith, 190 S.C ... 8, 1 S.E.2d 900, no doubt may be entertained as to the venue ... of actions brought against non-resident corporations and ... ...
-
Chappell v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland
... ... action. These emphasized facts make the defendant a ... "resident" of Chester County insofar as we are now ... concerned. Warren v. Smith, 190 S.C. 8, 1 S.E.2d ... 900, and earlier cases there cited. See also Elms v ... Southern Power Co., 78 S.C. 323, 58 S.E. 809, where it ... ...
-
Hancock v. Southern Cotton Oil Co.
... ... in the case and has been held to be irrelevant in the cases ... of Tucker v. Ingram et al., 187 S.C. 525, 198 S.E ... 25; Warren v. Smith et al., 190 S.C. 8, 1 S.E.2d ... 900, both of which reaffirm the principle as declared in ... Campbell v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident ... ...