Summary
In Ex parte First Pa. Banking Trust Co., 247 S.C. 506, 507-08, 148 S.E.2d 373, 374 (1966), this Court addressed the question of whether a South Carolina resident involved in an automobile accident in North Carolina could enforce a South Carolina "collision lien" statute against the at-fault driver, a Pennsylvania resident.
Summary of this case from Doctors Hospital v. ComptrustOpinion
18501
May 9, 1966.
Messrs. Robinson, McFadden Moore, of Columbia, for Appellant, cite: As to Section 45-551 of the 1962 South Carolina Code not creating a lien so as to permit an attachment in South Carolina where the automobile accident out of which the lien is claimed occurred in the State of North Carolina: 27 S.C. 456; 183 S.C. 495, 191 S.E. 416; 225 S.C. 347, 82 S.E.2d 512; 178 S.C. 527, 183 S.E. 460; 208 S.C. 349, 38 S.E.2d 145; 327 Mich. 342, 42 N.W.2d 110, 17 A.L.R.2d 685; 2 Beale on the Conflict of Laws (1st ed.) Sec. 378.4; 200 S.C. 448, 21 S.E.2d 22; 118 S.C. 267, 110 S.E. 385; 131 S.C. 289, 127 S.E. 20; 142 S.C. 362, 140 S.E. 693; 109 F. Supp. 730; 244 S.C. 249, 136 S.E.2d 303; 50 Am. Jur., Statutes, Sec. 485; 50 Am. Jur., Statutes, Sec. 487; 242 S.C. 182, 130 S.E.2d 475; 225 S.C. 347, 82 S.E.2d 512; 159 S.C. 128, 155 S.E. 750; 196 S.C. 1, 12 S.E.2d 34; 106 S.C. 362, 91 S.E. 332; 112 S.C. 258, 99 S.E. 838; Restatement, Conflict of Laws, Sec. 279; 16 Am. Jur.2d, Conflict of Laws, Sec. 34.
Messrs. Dallas D. Ball and Luther M. Lee, of Columbia, for Respondent, cite: As to Section 45-551 of the 1962 South Carolina Code creating a lien so as to permit an attachment in South Carolina when the collision occurred in another State but the Defendant car is found in South Carolina and is served in South Carolina by the Plaintiff who resides in South Carolina: 213 S.C. 156; 218 S.C. 373; 76 S.C. 561; 206 S.C. 372; 369 U.S. 1; 240 N.Y.2d Supp. 743; 123 S.C. 515, 116 S.E. 101; 106 S.C. 362, 91 S.E. 332; 213 S.C. 546, 50 S.E.2d 688; 205 Va. 897, 140 S.E.2d 817.
May 9, 1966.
An automobile bearing a Pennsylvania license, owned and operated by John Russell, a resident of Pennsylvania, was in collision with an automobile belonging to Eliza Sayles, apparently a resident of South Carolina, on September 11, 1965. The collision occurred in the State of North Carolina. The Pennsylvania automobile was removed to Richland County, South Carolina. Claiming a collision lien on the automobile by virtue of Section 45-551, South Carolina Code of Laws 1962, Sayles commenced an action in Richland County Court against it and Russell and caused the automobile to be attached. The parties are agreed that the sole issue presented here is whether Sayles has a lien on the Pennsylvania automobile, assuming its negligent operation in North Carolina, by virtue of the South Carolina collision lien statute. The county court conceived the issue to be one of statutory construction, and, finding no territorial limitation expressed in the statute, held that the attachment was authorized. We disagree. With exceptions which are without significance here, the jurisdiction of a state is restricted to its own territorial limits. 81 C.J.S. States § 3.
"* * * The several States are of equal dignity and authority, and the independence of one implies the exclusion of power from all others. And so it is laid down by jurists, as an elementary principle, that the laws of one State have no operation outside of its territory, except so far as is allowed by comity; and that no tribunal established by it can extend its process beyond that territory so as to subject either persons or property to its decisions. * * *" (Emphasis added.) Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565, 568.
"It is frequently declared that statutes can have no extraterritorial effect. By this statement, it is meant that legislative enactments can only operate, proprio vigore, upon persons and things within the territorial jurisdiction of the lawmaking power, and that no law has any effect, of its own force, beyond the territorial limits of the sovereignty from which its authority is derived. Thus, the general rule is that no state or nation can, by its laws, directly affect, bind, or operate upon property or persons beyond its territorial jurisdiction. A statute which purports to have such operation is invalid. * * *" 50 Am. Jur., Statutes, Section 485.
Under this rule, "rather universally recognized," it is quite clear that the South Carolina statute could not affect the rights or liabilities of the parties flowing from the North Carolina collision. No lien arose in North Carolina under the South Carolina statute, and none was created when the Pennsylvania automobile was transported into this state after the collision.
State of California v. Copus, 158 Tex. 196, 309 S.W.2d 227, 67 A.L.R.2d 758.
Reversed and remanded.
MOSS, Acting C.J., LEWIS and BUSSEY, JJ., and LEGGE, Acting Associate Justice, concur.