Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1910

Barfield v. Southern Cotton Oil Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided December 1, 1910 · Hydrick

69 S.E. 603; 87 S.C. 322; 1910 S.C. LEXIS 147 (South Eastern Reporter)

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Campbell v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n (S.C. 1931)
Lee v. Neal (S.C. 1958)
Jenkins v. McCarey (S.C. 1952)
Brigman v. One 1947 Ford Convertible Coupe Automobile (S.C. 1948)
South Carolina State Highway Department v. Isthmian S.S. Co. (S.C. 1947)
Halsey v. Minnesota-South Carolina Land & Timber Co. (S.C. 1932)
Hayes v. Seaboard A. L. Ry. (S.C. 1914)
State Ex Rel. Hemingway v. State Democratic Executive Committee (S.C. 1913)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.