Case Name: DAVIS v. CROZIER & CO.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1921-08-01
Citations: 121 S.C. 99
Docket Number: 10703
Parties: DAVIS v. CROZIER & CO.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Watts concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 99–109

Head Matter:
10703
DAVIS v. CROZIER & CO.
(113 S.E. 377)
1. Attachment — Claim: op Attached Property by Dependant Held to Raise Jury Question as to Ownership by Intervener.' — Where plaintiff attached certain property as the property of defendant, and another intervened, claiming the property, evidence that defendant declared over the telephone that the property was his, raised a question of fact to be determined by the jury, so that it was error to direct a verdict for the intervener.
On Petition por Rehearing
2. Evidence — Declarations op Assignor as to Ownership Are not Admissible Against Assignee op Bill op Lading. — Declarations by the assignor of a bill of lading claiming to own the property ' covered thereby are not competent evidence against the assignee on the issue of ownership.
NOTE: For right of third persons who claim property to intervene in attachment action, see note in 23 L. R. A. (N. S.), 536.
3. Appeal and Error — Objection Evidence "Was Irrelevant Did Not Raise Objection That it Was Declaration Not Binding on Inter-vener. — On .the trial of an intervention claiming attached property, an objection that declarations by the defendant claiming ownership of the property were irrelevant was insufficient to raise the objection that such declarations, which were clearly relevant, were not binding upon the defendant’s assignee, who intervened to claim the property.
Before Gary, Anderson, 1920.
Reversed and new trial ordered..
Action by T. B. Davis against W. H. Crozier & Co., in which State Bank & Trust Co. intervened and claimed the attached property. From directed verdict in favor of the intervener the plaintiff appeals.
Mr. Leon L. Rice, for appellant,
cites: Consignee not entitled to goods until draft is paid: 72 S. C., 454. Transfer back to consignee, revested title in them: 4 R. C. L., 32.
Messrs. Bonham & Allen, for State Bank & Trust Co., respondent,
cite: Verdict properly directed: 105 S. C., 128; 115 S. C., 137; 6 A. L. R., 234.
August 1, 1921.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
The record shows:
"This action was brought in July, 1920. Defendant, a foreign corporation, doing business at Nashville, Tenn., shipped a carload of oats to R. W. Pruitt & Son at Anderson, S. C. The shipment was what is commonly known as 'order notify' shipment; the draft for the purchase price of the oats being attached to the bill of lading and sent to a local bank for collection. The draft was not paid, and the oats were reconsigned to Augusta, Ga.
"On July 7, 1920, at the instance of plaintiff, the Sheriff entered the car in which the shipment moved and attached 60 sacks of the shipment, removing them from the car. Shortly thereafter the car was removed by the railroad to' Augusta, Ga.
"On July —¡-, 1920, State Bank & Trust Company, a bank at Nashville, Tenn., in accordance with the provisions of section 287 of the Code of Civil Procedure, served on plaintiff's attorney a demand for the merchandise attached, claiming to be legally entitled to the possession thereof. This plaintiff denied, and thereupon the Court submitted the issue to the jury in the following form, viz.: 'Issue — - Who was the owner of the oats attached in the car at Anderson, S. C., at the time of said attachment by the sheriff?'
- "On plaintiff's motion and over objection of State Bank & Trust Company, the Court ordered that such issues as arose out' of the action b}r plaintiff against defendant should be tried simultaneously with the trial of the issues between plaintiff and State Bank & Trust Company. The issues were so tried, and at the conclusion of the testimony the Court directed a verdict in favor of State Bank & Trust Company, arid instructed the jury to answer the issue as-ábove quoted, State Bank & Trust Company.' From the judgment entered thereon plaintiff appeals."
The plaintiff's witness Pruitt testified that he had conversation over the phone with Mr. Crozier after the draft was returned to Nashville in which "he said they were his oats and his draft." This raised a question of fact to be determined by the jury, and it was error to direct a verdict for the intervener.
The judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered.
Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Watts concur.