Action by John Deere Plow Company of St. Louis v. L.D. Jennings, Inc., for the purchase price of mortgaged farm machinery which Plaintiff attached. From Judgment dissolving the Attachment, Plaintiff appeals. Mr. Shepard K. Nash, of Sumter, S.C. Counsel for Appellant, cites: As to right of Assignee of Past Due ChattelMortgage to attach Chattels for Past Due Purchase Money: 187 S.C. 29, at p. 35, 196 S.E., 375; Code of S.C. 1942, Sec. 546; 6 C.J., 86; 19 S.C. 445, pp. 448-449; 114 S.C. 387, 103 S.E., 766; 3 Strob., 457; 202 S.C. 498, 25 S.E.2d 731; 11 C.J., 687; 4 A.J., p. 561; 122 Mass. 303; 29 L.R.A., at p. 803, 157 Ill., 579; 92 A.L.R., at p. 1277; 20 C.J., 20; 20 C.J., p. 33; 20 C.J., p. 31. Mr. Raymon Schwartz and Mr. A.S. Merrimon, both of Sumter, S.C. Counsel for Respondent, cite: As to Holderof Purchase Money Chattel Mortgage, After ConditionBroken, Attaching Chattel for Purchase Money in a Suitfor the Debt: 202 S.C. 498, 25 S.E.2d 731; Code of S.C. 1942, Sec. 546; 187 S.C. 29, 196 S.E., 375; 120 S.C. 361, 113 S.E., 275; 171 S.C. 253, 172 S.E., 146; 19 S.C. 445; 114 S.C. 387, 103 S.E., 766; Spears' Eq., 439.

         In South Carolina a vendor of personal property has no lien for the unpaid purchase price unless he takes a purchase money mortgage, or complies with the South Carolina attachment law pertaining to purchase money liens and until judgment, execution and levy have been made on the personal property. State v. McCary, 120 S.C. 361, 113 S.E. 275; Maxwell v. Greene, 171 S.C. 253, 172 S.E. 146; Ross v. Eddins, 187 S.C. 29, 196 S.E. 375.         It appears from the pleadings in this case that there is no purchase money mortgage, and that there has been no attachment of the personal property, no lien obtained and no judgment, execution and levy made under the purchase money attachment statutes.

Although attachment proceedings are generally regarded as at law, there is South Carolina authority which authorizes attachments in suits in equity. See 7 C.J.S. Attachment §§ 2(4) and 8b; Ross v. Eddins, 187 S.C. 29, 196 S.E. 375 (1938); Carolina Agency Co. v. Garlington, 85 S.C. 114, 67 S.E. 225 (1910). In any event, under the second or fourth scope of review principle announced in Townes Associates, Ltd. v. City of Greenville, 266 S.C. 81, 221 S.E.2d 773 (1976), the factual findings are binding on this Court as there is ample evidence to support them and they could not be considered against the clear preponderance or greater weight of the evidence.

Thomas F. McDow, Esq., of McDow McDow, Rock Hill, for Appellant, cites: As to the existence of relevanttestimony reasonably tending to establish Plaintiff's ownershipand right to possession of the trailer and a wrongfultaking of the trailer by the Defendants: 246 S.C. 241, 143 S.E.2d 521; 1 Bailey (17 S.C.L.) 546; 2 Strobert Equity (21 S.C. Eq.) 370; 89 C.J.S. "Trover Conversion" § 3; § 46-150.31 et seq. South Carolina Code of Laws; § 10.9-503 South Carolina Code of Laws; 171 S.C. 253, 172 S.E. 146; 187 S.C. 29, 196 S.E. 375. Edward M. Jackson Esq., of Jackson Leader, Rock Hill, for Respondents.