Case Name: Jacob Cohen vs. Henry Wigfall
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1855-01
Citations: 8 Rich. 237
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jacob Cohen vs. Henry Wigfall.
Judges: O’Neall, Wardlaw, Withers, Whither, and Munro, JJ. concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 237–239

Head Matter:
Jacob Cohen vs. Henry Wigfall.
Defendant lived over four months in the summer -with his father-in-law in the city of Charleston. In the winter following he removed to his plantation, and while there he was sued in the City Court — the writ being served by copy left at the house of his father-in-law. In the May after he returned to the city and again spent the summer with his father-in-law: — Held, that defendant was a resident within the meaning of the Act of 1818, and subject to the jurisdiction of the City Court.
BEFORE HIS HONOR THE RECORDER, IN THE CITY COURT.
This case was heard upon a statement as follows:
“ The defendant had lived at the house of his father-,in-law, in Charleston, during the summer of 1851, fqr over four months. In the winter of 1851 and 1852, he^ had removed, and lived upon his own plantation where he still was when the copy writ was left at the hause of his father-in-law, in Charleston, on the 23d April, 1852. Sometime after the 1st of May, 1852, he returned to the house of his father-in-law, and spent the sum-, mer there.”
The report of his Honor, the Recorder, is as follows:
“ The ground of appeal in this case calls in question the jurisdiction of the Court. To give jurisdiction, -firstly, it is clear, the defendant in any case, must be shown to have been a resident at the time of the service of the process. Secondly, either to have been a resident for three months immediately preceding the commencement of the action or prosecution, or to have been in the habit of residing previously, in the city, for four■ months in the year. The evidence as to residence in this case, consisted in a statement, agreed upon or conceded by the plaintiff’s counsel to be correct, which will be found annexed. I regarded the question of residence, as a matter of fact, to be submitted to, and decided by, the jury. In my instructions to them, I stated the requisitions of tbe law, as above laid down, and that they were to decide upon the facts, as stated in the writing, whether the defendant was a resident or not. They were instructed, they could not find a verdict for the plaintiff unless they were satisfied by the evidence, that the party was a resident in either one or the other points of view, in which the law is intended to make a party sued in this court liable Jo its jurisdiction. Under these instructions the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.”
The defendant appealed on the ground, that on the case made, the Court had no jurisdiction over the defendant.
Torre, for appellant.
Pressley, contra.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
G-loveR, J.
The Act of 1818, (7 Stat. 819,) by its terms, does not extend to any inhabitant of this state who may not be resident within the City of Charleston. In the case of Gildersleeve vs. Alexander, (2 Speer, 298,) the defendant had abandoned his residence before the service of process, and it was held, that the City Court had no jurisdiction, because the party sued was confessedly not a resident.
The Act further provides, that no person shall be construed to be a resident of the city, unless he shall have resided in the said city three months prior to the commencement of the suit, or prosecution, or shall have resided in the said city four months during the year preceding the commencement of the said suit or prosecution. The defendant in the principal case, did live in the city four months during the year preceding the commencement of this suit, and there is no evidence show ing that be bad abandoned that residence which made him subject, under the Act, to the jurisdiction of the City Court. He returned and spent the summer succeeding the service of process in this case, where he had lived the previous year, which proves the animus revertendi and brings him within the case of Bartlett vs. Brisbane, (2 Rich. 489.)
It is not necessary to add anything to the Recorder's judgment in that case, sustaining the jurisdiction of the City Court, which, on appeal, was affirmed by this Court.
Motion dismissed.
O'Neall, Wardlaw, Withers, Whither, and Munro, JJ. concurred.
Motion dismissed.