TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Barfield v. Southern Cotton Oil Co.

Barfield v. Southern Cotton Oil Co., 69 S.E. 603 (S.C. 1910)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of South Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 1, 1910
Docket
No. 7730
Judges
Hydrick
Citations
69 S.E. 60387 S.C. 3221910 S.C. LEXIS 147
Disposition
Affirmed.
Cited by 8
Syllabus
1. Foreign Corporation — Resident—Venue.—An action against a foreign corporation and a resident of this State, in which the venue is laid in a county other than that of the resident, should,, on his motion, be transferred to the county of his residence for trial. 2. Pleading — Jurisdiction—Waiver.—When an action is brought in the wrong county, answering to the merits to keep from being adjudged in default, subject to motion to transfer to county of residence, previously noticed, is not a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the Court, or a waiver of his right to press his motion to transfer, where the appearance is special and the right to make the motion is expressly reserved.
Summary
Before WiLSON, J., Lexington, November, 1909. Action by J. J. Barfield against Southern Cotton Oil Company and A. C. Hammond. From order transferring-case to Richland county, plaintiff appeals. cites: Respondent being a foreign corporation by its appearance and anszuer submits itself to the jurisdiction of the Court: 70 S. C. 503 • 35 S. C. 372; 51 S. C. 164; 64 S. C. 201; 43 S. C. 186; 46 S. C. 9; 62 S. C. 293; 69 S- C. 278; 78 S. C. 326; 48 S. C. 351; 72 S. C. 481; 74 S. C., 438; 46 S. C. 32; 20 S. C., 93. cite: Judgment in a wrong county is without jurisdiction and a nullity: 25 S. C. 386; 28 S. C. 315; 74 S'. C. 71, 440. Answering does not waive defect of jurisdiction in wrong county: 74 S. C. 71, 440. Right to insist on motion already noticed is not waived by tiling answer reserving the right: 53 S. C. 580. Residence is a question of fact: 73 S. C. 184.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hydrick

The opinion of the Court was delivered by 1

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

An action against a foreign corporation and a resident of this State, in which the venue is laid in a county other than that of the resident of the State, should, on his motion, be tranferred to the county of his residence for trial. Code, Sec. 146.

2

When an action is brought in the wrong county, asnwering to the merits to keep from being adjudged in default; subject to the rights of .defendant under notice of a motion previously given to transfer the case to the county of his residence for trial, is not a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the Court, or a waiver of his right to press his motion for an order transferring the case to the county of his residence for trial, where the appearance is special and the right to make such motion is expressly reserved.

Whaley v. Lawton, 53 S. C. 580, 31 S. B. 660;

Rafield v. R. R. Co., 86 S. C. 324.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →
1913: 11914: 11931: 11932: 11947: 11948: 11952: 11958: 119132026peak 1913 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Campbell v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n159 S.E. 490 (S.C. 1931)
  2. South Carolina State Highway Department v. Isthmian S.S. Co.43 S.E.2d 132 (S.C. 1947)
  3. Halsey v. Minnesota-South Carolina Land & Timber Co.166 S.E. 626 (S.C. 1932)
  4. Brigman v. One 1947 Ford Convertible Coupe Automobile50 S.E.2d 688 (S.C. 1948)
  5. Hayes v. Seaboard A. L. Ry.81 S.E. 1102 (S.C. 1914)
  6. Jenkins v. McCarey73 S.E.2d 446 (S.C. 1952)

Most recent

  1. Lee v. Neal104 S.E.2d 291 (S.C. 1958)
  2. Jenkins v. McCarey73 S.E.2d 446 (S.C. 1952)
  3. Brigman v. One 1947 Ford Convertible Coupe Automobile50 S.E.2d 688 (S.C. 1948)
  4. South Carolina State Highway Department v. Isthmian S.S. Co.43 S.E.2d 132 (S.C. 1947)
  5. Halsey v. Minnesota-South Carolina Land & Timber Co.166 S.E. 626 (S.C. 1932)
  6. Campbell v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n159 S.E. 490 (S.C. 1931)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list