Court Opinion

ID: 9868268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:27:13.748502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:48.871541
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Cothran :
I concur with Mr. Justice Watts in his disposition of this case. After the plaintiff had recovered a verdict for the recovery of the possession of the truck, valued at $220, he had the right to enter up judgment in conformity with that verdict (Wilkins v.. Willimon, 128 S. C., 509; 122 S. E., 503), and to issue execution tinder Section 609, Subd. 4, of the Code. Under that execution the sheriff should have seized the truck and delivered it to-the plaintiff, who then must have proceeded in the regular way to foreclose his chattel mortgage by advertisement and sale. While it appears that the counsel for the plaintiff had a conversation with the counsel for the defendants, which he construes as a demand upon him for the possession of the truck, this was evidently before the execution was issued, and the refusal, the provocation of the execution. It does not appear that any demand was made upon the sheriff for the possession after the levy, although opportunity therefore was presented during the period of advertisement. Manifestly, the sheriff was acting under the directions of the counsel for die plaintiff, who apparently concluded that a sale by the sheriff was an effectual as if the-truck had been turned over to him by the sheriff and the plaintiff had proceeded in the regular way to foreclose. If that had been done, unquestionably the sureties would have-been dischargd, and I think that the course pursued, intended to accomplish the same result, must be construed as-*450a delivery of the truck to the plaintiff, and its effect and discharge of the sureties.
Messrs. Justices Brease and Stabrer and Acting Associate Justice Ramage concur.