Court Opinion

ID: 9826473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:58:25.598728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:04.170430
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Cothran.;
I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Watts, but desire to present the following view of the controversy, in addition to what he has said:
Section 287 of the Code (Volume 2, Code of Laws A. D. 1912) prescribes the course to be followed by a person other than the defendant who makes claim tO' the property which has been attached. Upon the presentation of his claim, if the plaintiff concedes its validity, the party in possession shall be dismissed, and naturally though it is not specifically provided, the attached property would be surrendered to the claimant. So far as the plaintiff is concerned, the claimant will have established his right to the property. Should the plaintiff contest the intervening claim, an issue is directed to be made up and tried as to the validity of the claim and judgment rendered accordingly. If that issue should be decided in favor oí the claimant his right to the attached property will have thereby been established.
It is also provided that when the property is claimed by such other person, the plaintiff shall execute to him the same undertalcing which he is required' by law to execute in favor of the defendant in the first instance and the undertaking shall be executed within 10 days after the plaintiff shall have received notice of the claim.
It has been held in the cases of Ford v. Calhoun, 53 S. C., 110; 30 S. E., 30, and Bank v. McSwain, 93 S. C., 30; 75 S. E. 1106; Ann. Cas. 1914D, 809, that if the plaintiff should fail to give the undertaking to the plaintiff within *158the specified time, he shall be held to have conceded the rightfulness of the claim.
So that there are three methods by which the right of the claimant to the attached property may be established in the attachment proceedings:
(1) By the concession of the plaintiff.
(2) By the decision of the issue upon his claim in favor of the claimant.
■(3) By the failure of the plaintiff to execute to him the undertaking required.
Section 296 of the Code provides:
“And in all cases the defendant, or any person who establishes a right to the property attached, may move to discharge the attachment, as in the case of other provisional remedies.”
I know of no more valid objection to an attachment than that it has not been levied upon the property of the defendant but upon the property of the claimant.
It would serve no useful purpose to declare that the claimant had established her right to the property and, without giving her relief in the attachment proceedings before the Court, remit her to an action of claim and delivery.
In 6 C. J. 405, it is said:
“Where the claimant or intervener succeeds in establishing his title to the property attached (which as I have endeavored to show may be accomplished in some one of the methods indicated), the judgment should be that the attachment be vacated, and the property returned to the true owner; and the Court should make such orders as are necessary to protect the rights of the claimant.”
Mr. Justice Marion concurs.