Case Name: DAVIS v. CROZIER & CO.; STATE BANK & TRUST CO., INTERVENER
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1923-04-21
Citations: 123 S.C. 525
Docket Number: 11196
Parties: DAVIS v. CROZIER & CO. STATE BANK & TRUST CO., INTERVENER
Judges: Mr. Chiee Justice Gary concurs.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 123
Pages: 525–533

Head Matter:
11196
DAVIS v. CROZIER & CO. STATE BANK & TRUST CO., INTERVENER
(117 S. E., 309)
Carriers—On Bank Charging- Returned Draft to Seller’s Account, Title Revested in Seller, Though Bank Was to Resell for Seller’s Account.—Where seller shipped oats under an “order notify” shipment, sold the draft with bill of lading attached to the bank, and on buyer’s refusal of shipment the draft was returned unpaid and by the bank charged to seller’s account, but the bill of lading retained by the bank under its agreement to take charge of and sell the oats for the seller’s account, held, that shipment was subject to attachment by seller’s creditors, as title to the oats had revested in seller.
Before Moore, J., Anderson, 1922.
Affirmed.
Action by T. R. Davis against W. H. Crozier & Co., in which the State Bank & Trust Co. intervened. From a directed verdict for plaintiff, the intervener appeals. Former appeals in this case will be found in 121 S. C., 99; 113 S. E, 377.
Messrs. Bonham & Allen for appellant.
Mr. Leon L. Rice, for respondent,
cites: -Title transferred by Crosier can be transferred by the one to whom he transferred and it makes no difference that the transfer was back to the original owner: 72 S. C., 450; 82 S. C., 471; 4 R. C. B., 32-4; B. R. A., 1915B, 537.
April 21, 1923.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
W. H. Crozier & Co., of Nashville, Tenn., sold three carloads of oats to R. W. Pruitt & Son, at Anderson, S. C. Tt was what is known as an "order notify" shipment. Crozier went to the State Bank & Trust Company with a draft on Pruitt & Son, and sold the draft with the bill of lading attached to the bank. The oats arrived in Anderson, but Pruitt & Son did not pay the draft. The draft was returned to the bank. The record is not entirely clear as to whether the dishonored draft was simply charged to the account of Crozier, or Crozier gave his check to the bank for the amount of the draft. The bank then agreed to take charge of the oats, resell them, and place the proceeds of the resale to the credit of Crozier. The bank took charge of the oats and resold them. One carload of oats was attached and 60 sacks taken from it. The only question in this case is as to the ownership of the oats. The bank intervened in the action and claimed the oats. The plaintiff claims that the oats were the property of Crozier. Judge Moore, who tried the case, held that the oats were the property of Crozier, and directed a verdict for the plaintiff. From the judgment entered upon this- verdict, the bank appealed.
The appeal cannot be sustained. Crozier & Co. started with title. They, assigned the bill of lading for their oats to the bank. When the draft was returned unpaid, the bank charged the unpaid draft to Crozier's account. The title to the bill of lading and the oats revested in Crozier, as a matter of law, unless there was an agreement to the contrary. The record shows no such agreement. The proceeds were to go to Crozier's account. The oats were to be resold for his benefit. We are bound' by the record. It was incumbent on the bank and Crozier to show that Crozier parted with his title before the attachment was levied, and this they utterly failed to do. The legal conclusion from the admitted facts was that the title was still in Crozier, and his Honor was right in directing a verdict.
The judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Chiee Justice Gary concurs.