Wilson v. Garrison

• Decision Date: 27 February 1922
• Docket Number: 10834.
• Citation: 110 S.E. 806,118 S.C. 329
• Parties: WILSON ET AL. v. GARRISON ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

110 S.E. 806

118 S.C. 329

WILSON ET AL. v. GARRISON ET AL.

No. 10834.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 27, 1922

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Anderson County; T. S Sease, Judge.

Action by A. Z. Wilson and others against George Garrison and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

The complaint alleged in substance as follows:

That the defendant George Garrison, for value received, made and delivered to the Bank of Pendleton, on January 6, 1920, his certain promissory note, payable on November 1, 1920, for $480, and to secure payment of said note, the defendant George Garrison gave to the Bank of Pendleton a chattel mortgage on two mules, a wagon, buggy, cow, and two bales of good middling lint cotton, weighing 500 pounds each, whether already raised or to be grown thereafter by or under the said George Garrison, during the year 1920, upon the following described land, to wit: W. F. C. Owen, Pendleton township state of South Carolina, county of Anderson.

That said chattel mortgage was duly recorded and for value assigned by the Bank of Pendleton in due course to plaintiffs, who are now the owners and holders thereof; that the defendant George Garrison has paid no part of said note and mortgage, but has surrendered possession of the mules, wagon, buggy, and cow described in said chattel mortgage, and that all of said chattels are insufficient to pay said mortgage debt.

That the cotton described in said mortgage is in the possession of the defendant W. F. C. Owen, who holds it, according to plaintiffs' information and belief, upon a junior mortgage, and refuses to deliver the same, although possession thereof has been demanded.

The complaint prays for the possession of said cotton and the sum of $100, as damages for withholding same.

The answer of the defendant George Garrison is in substance as follows:

For a first defense he alleged a general denial.

For a second defense he alleged that the personal property previously delivered to plaintiffs under said chattel mortgage was more than sufficient to pay the mortgage debt and for that reason he pleaded full accord and satisfaction of said debt.

For a third defense he alleged that the chattel mortgage mentioned and described in the complaint is invalid and of no effect as a lien upon the crops therein mentioned because it failed properly to identify and describe the crops of cotton which it was meant to cover, as well as the time when said crops were to be raised or grown, and in that said mortgage failed to describe the land upon which said crops were to be grown.

For a fourth defense he alleged that the cotton seized by the officer in this action was not such as is mentioned and described in said chattel mortgage; and that he, the said George Garrison, had not raised any crops or cotton of the description contained in said chattel mortgage on any land of the defendant W. F. C. Owen during the year 1920.

The answer of the defendant W. F. C. Owen is in substance as follows:

For a first defense he alleged a general denial.

For a second defense he alleged that the chattel mortgage mentioned and described in the complaint is invalid and of no effect as a lien upon the crops therein mentioned because it fails properly to describe and identify the crops which it was to cover, and the land upon which said crops were to be raised or grown.

For a third defense he alleged that the crops seized by the officers in this action are not such as are mentioned and described in said alleged mortgage, and that the defendant George Garrison had not raised any crops or cotton of the description contained in said mortgage on the land of the said W. F. C. Owen during the year 1920.

For a fourth defense he alleged that he had a contract...