Case Name: BARROW v. GOWDY
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1920-06-28
Citations: 114 S.C. 122
Docket Number: 10415
Parties: BARROW v. GOWDY.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 114
Pages: 122–123

Head Matter:
10415
BARROW v. GOWDY.
(103 S. E. 477.)
Venue — Action for Specific Performance Laid in County Where Land Located. — Under Code Civ. Proc. 1912, sec. 172, venue of an action for specific performance is properly laid’in the county where the land is located, notwithstanding the defendant was a resident of another county.
Before Townsend, J., Clarendon, Summer term, 1919.
Affirmed.
Action by J. M. Barrow against S. M. Gowdy for specific performance. From an order denying a motion for change of venue, defendant appeals.
Messrs. Arrowsmith, Muldrow, Bridges and Hicks, for appellant,
cite: Place of trial of civil actions: Secs. 172-174 Code. Residence of defendant proper place of trial unless case is one where jury trial can be demanded as of right, in which case trial must be had in county zvhere land is situated: 40 Cyc. 57, 58, 59, 63.; 61 S. C. 512. Cases cited in Judge Townsend’s order differentiated from case at bar.
Mr. W. C. Davis, for respondent,
cites: Action for specific performance not solely an action in personam: 110 SC. 493. Courts of equity have jurisdiction: 2 DeSaus. 271; Bail. Eq. 360-366; 23 Am. Dec. 170; 6 Rich. Eq. 11A Subject matter being laid in Clarendon county place of trial regulated by sec. if 2, Code Ipi2.
June 28, 1920.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Me. Justice Watts.
The sole question raised by this appeal is whether the county designated for the purpose of trying the action in the, complaint is the proper county or not.
The defendant is a resident of Florence county, and plaintiff is seeking specific performance of a contract to convey land situate in Clarendon county and brought his suit for specific performance in the Court of Common Pleas for Clarendon county. A motion was made before Judge Townsend to change the venue from Clarendon county to Florence county, which motion was refused.
The exceptions must be overruled. The subject matter of the action is the land situated in Clarendon county, and the place of trial is regulated by Code of Civil Procedure of 1912, section 172. The action is one to determine the right or interest of the plaintiff in real property situated in Clarendon county, and must be tried in Clarendon county, where the land is situated.
Judgment affirmed.