Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

KELLY v. DANGEL

July 28, 1958

R. LEE KELLY, INSURANCE COMMISSIONER OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AS RECEIVER IN SOUTH CAROLINA FOR TRANS-PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT,
v.
NELSON M. DANGEL, DOING BUSINESS AS CAPITOL INSURANCE AGENCY, APPELLANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oxner, Justice.

July 28, 1958.

This is an appeal from an order refusing a motion by defendant to change the venue of this action from Sumter to Richland County.

The suit was brought in Sumter County by the Insurance Commissioner of this State, as receiver in South Carolina for the Trans-Pacific Insurance Company, against Nelson M. Dangel doing business as Capitol Insurance Agency, to recover certain premiums alleged to have been collected by defendant as the agent of the company and to also recover alleged unearned commissions on policies cancelled. An answer was duly filed by defendant in which he denied liability for any debts of the Capitol Insurance Agency. He further alleged "that the business known as Capitol Insurance Agency is a partnership composed of Sibyl T. McElveen and Krystal K. Dangel and the defendant Nelson M. Dangel has no connection with said partnership or business except as an agent and employee, to-wit, as general manager." He then denied that the Capitol Insurance Agency was indebted in any manner to the Insurance Company either for premiums collected or for unearned commissions.

At the time the answer was filed, defendant made a motion to change the venue to Richland County "on the ground that neither of the partners in the defendant partnership are residents of Sumter County, that one of the partners is a resident of Richland County, that the place of business of the partnership is in Richland County, and that said partnership does not have a place of business or do business in Sumter County." The facts stated in said motion were supported by an affidavit of the defendant.

We express no opinion as to the other grounds upon which the motion was refused.

Affirmed.

STUKES, C.J., and TAYLOR, LEGGE and MOSS, JJ., concur.

19580728

© 1992-2003 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.