Tate v. Brazier
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before DeVorE, J., Greenville, October, 1920. Action by W. J. Tate against R. R. Wood and Lawrence Brazier for personal injuries from an automobile. From judgment for plaintiff, the defendants appeal. cite: Automobile Attachment Act: 27 Stat. 737. Similar acts: 4172, 4173, 1 Civ.
Read the full summary
Before DeVorE, J., Greenville, October, 1920. Action by W. J. Tate against R. R. Wood and Lawrence Brazier for personal injuries from an automobile. From judgment for plaintiff, the defendants appeal. cite: Automobile Attachment Act: 27 Stat. 737. Similar acts: 4172, 4173, 1 Civ. Code 1912. Brazier was innocent purchaser after the injury to plaintiff, and his rights should be protected: 95 S. C. 29; 13 Wall. 14; 31 N. W. 694 (Wis.); 24 So. 1; 55 S. W. 144; 33 S. E. 995; 82 So. 28.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court, was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
The plaintiff was injured by an automobile owned and operated by Wood. A few days afterwards Wood sold the automobile to Smith. Smith in turn sold it to the appellant for $750 cash.
Plaintiff was injured November 15, 1919. On January 30, 1920, he commenced suit for personal injury against Wood and Brazier, and attached autorriobile in Braier’s hand. Brazier, when he purchased the machine, had no notice of the injury of plaintiff by the machine when owned and operated by Wood. The plaintiff obtained a verdict for $600. There is no…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Merchants & Planters Bank v. BrigmanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1917
3Cited by6 opinions
- Rimer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1966
- Hall v. LockeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1921
- Layton v. FlowersSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1964
- State v. CampbellSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1930
- Denny v. DoeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1921
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.