Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

dict directed against him. Bank
of Inman v. Elliott, 84 S. E. 996,
100 S. C. 440.

TELEGRAPHS.

See Trial.

an

[ocr errors]

one

every reasonable doubt in favor
of its validity. Thomas v. Spar-
tanburg Ry., Gas 8 Electric Co.,

85 S. E. 50, 100 S. C. 478.
4. While it is primarily for the

legislature to decide whether a
general law can be made applica-
ble, it is ultimately a judicial
question.

Thomas v. Spartan-
burg Ry., Gas & Electric Co., 85

S. E, 50, 100 S. C. 478.
5. The classification made by a
statute need not be

of
mathematical precision, nor need
it result in perfect equality; it
being sufficient if it is reason-
able in its main features.
Thomas Spartanburg_Ry.,
Gas & Electric Co., 85 S. E. 50,

100 S. C. 478.
6. Civil Code 1912, sec. 3950, re-
quiring certain

to be
equipped with fenders, is not un-
constitutional as a denial of the
equal protection of the laws.
Thomas v. Spartanburg Ry., Gas
f: Electric Co., 85 S. E. 50, 100
S. C. 475.

V.

cars

SUNDAY LAWS.

ness.

1. It was no defense, for error in

transmission of a telegram, that
it was intrusted for delivery to
plaintiff, to unauthorized
person.
Painter

Western
Union Telegraph Co., 84 S. E.

293, 100 S. C. 64.
2. Punitive damages for mistake

in transmission of a telegram
could not be recovered, in the
absence of a showing by plaintiff
that the receiving agent under-
stood the message or was neg-
nigent in failing to understand
it. Painter v. Western Union
Telegraph Co., 84 S. E. 293, 100

S. C. 64.
3. Though a message announcing

the safety of plaintiff's son was
read back, its transmission to
read that the child was dead
justified a submission of wilful-

Painter v. Western Union
Telegraph Co., 84 S. E. 293, 100

S. C. 64.
4. In an action for mistake in

transmission of a telegram, a re-
quested charge held properly

refused as misleading. Id.
5. An instruction that, if a tele-

graph company chooses to re-
ceive for transmission
sage over the telephone to an
agent in its office, it is subject
to the same accountability as if
the message

was written and
placed in its hands, held erro-

Id.
6. The addressing of a telegram to

the addressee "R. F. D. 1" is
a direction to the telegraph com-
pany to use the mail for its de-
livery, and the company is not
liable for delay thereby occa-
sioned. Garner

Western
Union Telegraph Co., 84 S. E.

mes-

1. Criminal Code 1912, sec. 699,

providing for the forfeiture of
goods exposed for sale on Sun-
day, does not violate Const., art.
I, sec. 4, declaring that the Gen-
eral Assenıbly shall make no law
respecting an establishment of
religion. State v. Hondros, 84

S. E. 781, 100 S. C. 242.
2. Const. U. S., amend. 5, and

Const., art. I, sec. 5, providing
for due process of law, held not
violated by Criminal Code 1912,
sec. 699, et seq., providing for
the forfeiture of goods exposed
for sale on Sunday. State v.
Hondros, 84 S. E. 781, 100 S.
C. 242.

SURETY.

neous.

1. Where there is no testimony

tending to show that a party,
whose name appeared irregu-
larly on

v.

the book of

note +

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

202

[blocks in formation]

be put upon his voir dire unless
a request therefor is made by
a party to the action. Yar-
borough v. Columbia Ry., Gas
f Electric Co., 84 S. E. 308, 100

S. C. 33.
3. It is for the Court, and not for

the jury, to construe all instru-
ments in writing. Saye v. Hill,

84 S. E. 307, 100 S. C. 21.
4. Admission of testimony in reply

rests in the discretion of the
trial Court. Smith v. Union-
Buffalo Mills Co., 84 S. E. 422,

100 S. C. 115.
5. Where there is any competent

evidence that presents any issu-
able fact from which more than
one inference can be drawn, it
should be left to the jury. Ashe
v. Standard Oil Co., 84 S. E.

412, 100 S. C. 107.
6. References made by counsel to

the existence of former bound-
ary suit, the result not being
mentioned, held not error. Hol-
den v. Cantrell, 84 S. E. 826, 100

S. C. 265.
7. Under express provisions of

Code Civil Proc., sec. 220, et
seq., party moving for nonsuit
on ground of variance between
allegations of complaint and
proof must show that he has
been misled. Moore v. Marion
Cotton Oil Co., 85 S. E. 52, 100

S. C. 499.
8. A charge of bad faith on the

part of the prosecuting attorney
in withholding testimony from
the jury, involves constructive
or actual fraud, design to de-
ceive or neglect or refusal to
fulfill some duty, due to an in-
terested or sinister motive, and
not honest mistake, and is not
to be lightly made, and when
made, should be clearly proven.
State v. Griffin, 84 S. E. 876, 100

S. C. 331.
9. The failure of a prosecuting at-

torney to offer testimony as to
facts known, which could

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

or

1

TRUSTS.

an

new

1. Where a fiduciary relation re-

quired defendant to render to
plaintiff accounting, and
plaintiff traced funds into the
hands of defendant, the latter
must show that he has properly
disbursed the funds. Cobb v.
Garlington, 84 S. E. 302, 100 S.

C. 50.
2. Purchasers of a trust estate

with knowledge of the trust take
it incumbered therewith. Folk
v. Hughes, 84 S. E. 713, 100 S.

C. 220.
8. Where the life estate conveyed

to G. is not merely for his use,
but in trust for maintenance of
his children, he cannot destroy
the remainder to his children by
reconveying before he has chil-
dren, and so while the remain-
der is still contingent.

Folk v.
Hughes, 84 S. E. 713, 100 S. C.

220.
4. It is not necessary to creation

of a trust estate that the cestui
que trust be in existence at the
time. Folk v. Hughes, 84 S. E.

713, 100 S. C. 220.
5. A trustee by his own act can-

not defeat or destroy his trust.
Id.

3. Where a general verdict for

damages is rendered upon issues
as to the commission of both a
trespass and a conversion, and
the issue as to conversion was
erroneously submitted to the
jury, a

trial should be
granted. Saye v. Hill, 84 S. E.

USURY.

1. The renewal of a demand note

bearing per cent. interest at
8 per cent., held not usurious,
where a written agreement was
made therefor. Goodlett
Goodlett, 84 S. E. 414, 100 S.
C. 84.

[ocr errors]

307, 100 S. C. 21.
4. Where there is no testimony to

show that the indorsee and hol-
der for value before maturity
of a negotiable promissory note,
acted in bad faith, or had notice
before purchase of any defect
affecting the paper, or facts to
put a prudent man on inquiry,
a verdict is properly directed
for the plaintiff. Edens v. Gib-

son, 84 S. E. 1005, 100 S. C. 353.
5. If a special verdict in a crimi-

nal case is defective or insuffi-
cient to sustain a judgment of
conviction, a motion should be
made before judgment to set
such verdict aside and for a new
trial. State v. Byrnes, 84 S. E.
822, 100 S. C. 353.

VERIFICATION.

1. In an action by a corporation

the complaint may be verified
by any officer thereof; and an
affidavit that deponent is such
officer and that the allegations
of the complaint are true of his
own knowledge, is a proper veri-
fication. So. Cotton Oil Co. v.
Lightsey, 84 S. E. 301, 100 S.

C. 41.
2. Where the complaint is verified,

the answer must be verified also.
So. Cotton Oil Co. v. Lightsey,
84 S. E. 302, 100 S. C. 41.

VERDICT.

VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS.

1. Where there is any evidence

tending to sustain a verdict, the

1. Payments voluntarily made with,

full knowledge of the facts can

WATERWORKS AND

SEWERAGE.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1. Where a petition by freehold-

ers under Civil Code 1912, sec-
tion 3015, prayed for an elec-
tion on the question of the issu-
ance of bonds for the construc-
tion alone of waterworks and
sewerage systems, and the town
council ordered an election on
the question of issuing

such
bonds for the construction and
maintenance of such systems,
and it appeared, after a vote
in favor of such issuance, that
the cost of construction would
probably

the entire
proceeds of the bond issue, the
variance between the petition
and submission did not affect the
validity of the bonds as a debt
of the corporation, and the
moneys obtained upon the bonds
may be used for the purpose of
constructing such systems. Con-
nelly v. Beason, 84 S. E. 297, 100
S. Č. 74.

[ocr errors]

consume

[ocr errors]

cauld be

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

WILFULNESS.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

teri

1. Where a wilful trespass in tak-

ing personal property is alleged,
the admission of testimony to
show the circumstances which
led to the taking, is within the
discretion of the trial Judge.
Williams v. Weekley, 84 S. E.

299, 100 S. C. 28.
2. Where an inference that a mes-

sage was deliberately changed
in transmission may be drawn
from the evidnce, a nonsuit of
action for punitive damages was
properly refused. Painter
W. U. Tel. Co., 84 S. E. 299,

100 S. C. 65.
3. In an action against a telegraph

[ocr errors]

V.
man

[ocr errors]

may plead in defense any facts
rebutting the allegations or in-
ference of wilfulness, or which
would, if established, mitigate
the damages claimed in the
complaint. Ashe v. So. Ry. Co.,

84 S. E. 716, 100 S. C. 187.
5. Where the testimony does not

suggest that the master had
knowledge or notice of the de-
cayed condition of a post, and
fails to indicate that the master
was guilty of any conscious
wrong, the Court properly with-
drew from the jury the issue as
whether the injury was caused
by the master's wilfulness, wan-
tonness or recklessness. Bridg-

v. So. Bell Telephone 8
Telegraph Co., 84 S. E. 711, 100

S. C. 204.
See Trespass. Bennett v. Colle-

ton Cypress Co., 84 S. E. 882,
100 S. C. 335.

тап

WILLS.

1. To establish a contract for the

making of mutual wills by par-
ties, one of whom is deceased,
the evidence must be definite,
certain, clear and convincing.
Dicks v. Cassels, 84 S. E. 878,

100 S. C. 341.
2. The testimony of the survivor

is incompetent under Code Civil
Proc.,

438, to establish
against a decedent, an alleged
contract between them, to make
mutual wills in favor of each
other. Id.

sec.

company for damages arising
from its mistake either in tran-
scribing a message telephone to
its office. or in thereafter trans-

WITNESSES.

1. In a boundary suit, testimony

of a former owner as to a con-
versation of a third person with
his father, then the owner of
the land, is not obnoxious to
Code Civil Procedure 1912, sec.
438. Holden v. Cantrell, 84 S.

E. 826, 100 S. C. 265.
2. In an action on a health indem-

with

3. “Described.” Livingston v. Sea-

board Air Line R. Co. (S. C.),

84 S. E. 303, 100 S. C. 17.
4. "Mentioned.” Livingston v. Sea-

board Air Line R. Co. (S. C.),

84 S. E. 303, 100 S. C. 17.
5. “Leading question.” Smith v.

Union-Buffalo Mills Co. (S. C.),

84 S. E. 422, 100 S. C. 121.
6. “Account stated." Wakefield v.

Spoon (S. C.), 84 S. E. 418, 100

S. C. 100.
7. “Overcharge on freight.” Wich-

v. Atlantic Coast Line R.
Co. (S. C.), 84 S. E. 420, 100 S.

engage rooms in bawdy house for
himself, another man, and ac-
cused's wife and daughter, held
incompetent to contradict daugh-
ter's testimony that he did.
State v. Tidwell, 84 S. E. 778,

100 S. C. 248.
4. A question which does not sug-

gest an answer in the affirma-
tive or negative, is not a "lead-
ing question.” Smith v. Union-
Buffalo Mills Co., 84 S. E. 422,

100 S. C. 115.
5. Under Code Civil Procedure

1912, sec. 438, in action to en-
force agreement to make mutual
wills surviving party to such
agreement, held incompetent to
testify to transactions and com-
munications with the deceased
party. Dicks v. Cassels, 84 S.

E. 878, 100 S. C. 341.
6. Affidavit that the State's chief

witness had some eight years
before the trial stolen chickens
from affiant was not such proof
of conviction of crime as to ren-
der such witness incompetent.
State v. Griffin, 84 S. E. 876,

100 S. C. 331.
7. Where the defendant in a civil

action fails to produce testimony
within his reach to contradict
testimony introduced by plain-
tiff, the former cannot complain
if the jury takes the view that
defendant could not deny the
charge. Jordan v. So. Ry. Co.,
84 S. E. 871, 100 S. C. 284.

C. 138.
8. “Due process of law.” State v.

Hondros (S. C.), 84 S. E. 781,

100 S. C. 242.
9. “Jurors in attendance." State

v. Tidwell (S. C.), 84 S. E. 778,

100 S. C. 248.
10. “Partnership.” State v. Grum-

bles (S. C.), 84 S. E. 783, 100

S. C. 238.
11. “Punishment." State v. Hon-

dros (S. C.), 84 S. E. 781, 100

S. C. 242.
12. “Abuse of discretion." State

v. Griffin (S. C.), 84 S. C. 876,

100 S. C. 331.
13. “Bad faith.” State v. Griffin,

(S. C.), 84 S. E. 876, 100 S. C.

331.
14. “Highways.” Speights v. Col-

leton County (S. C.), 84 S. E.
873, 100 S. C. 304.
15. “Mortgage.” Bryan v. Boyd

(S. C.), 84 S. E. 992, 100 S. C.

397.
16. "Officer of executive depart-

ment.” State v. Singleton (S.

C.), 84 S. E. 989, 100 S. C. 465.
17. “Redeem.” Bryan v. Boyd (S.

C.), 84 S. E. 992, 100 S. Č. 397.

WORDS AND PHRASES.

1. “Accomplice.” State v. Adams

(S. C.), 84 S. E. 368, 100 S. C.

42.
2. "Interest." Herndon v. Ward-

law (S. C.), 84 S. E. 112, 100
S. C. 1.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »