Pagan v. Drake Furniture Co.

Citation53 S.E. 542,73 S.C. 364
PartiesPAGAN v. DRAKE FURNITURE CO.
Decision Date28 February 1906
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; Gary Judge.

Action by Louisa Pagan against the Drake Furniture Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Clark & Clark and D. W. Robinson, for appellant.

WOODS J.

The complaint in this case alleges in substance that the defendant, by his agents and servants, entered the premises of plaintiff, demanded payment of money due by her to him and upon her failure to pay, recklessly, willfully and maliciously seized a tablecloth of the value of $1.51 belonging to her, and forcibly and against her will carried it away; and that in making this seizure, defendant's agents, for the purpose of frightening her into compliance with their demands and humiliating her, used language calculated to frighten and intimidate, and which did frighten plaintiff and subject her to nervous shock. Damages were alleged and demanded in the sum of $1,000. The defendant in his answer alleges that the tablecloth was his property hired to plaintiff, and that it was taken under the right given by a written contract with her, and denies that he acted recklessly, willfully or maliciously. Under the issue thus made the plaintiff recovered a verdict of $100.

The defendant's appeal depends mainly upon whether the circuit judge committed the error of charging that punitive damages could be inflicted for "a wrong" which would mean any wrong, though unaccompanied by recklessness, wantonness, willfulness, malice, or high-handed conduct. We do not think the jury could have received that impression. It is true, that the circuit judge did say: "Now, as to the question of punitive damages: the object of punitive damages is to punish a wrong. In deciding as to whether or not you should award punitive damages, you will determine whether there has been a wrong committed on the plaintiff by the defendant; and that brings up the question of the taking of the tablecloth." But he immediately followed this with the following statement, which indicated that the issue was whether the seizure was a wanton and high-handed wrong: "There is no issue that the defendants took possession of the tablecloth, but there is where the difference on the question of fact comes in; the contention of the plaintiff being that they did it in a reckless, high-handed, wanton spirit, against...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Girard v. Anderson
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • November 20, 1934
    ... ... 24 ... R. C. L. 486, section 779; W. T. Walker Furniture Co. v ... Dyson, 32 App. D.C. 90, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 606; ... Lambert v. Robinson, 162 Mass. 34, ... Wren v. Flynn, 34 La.Ann. 1158; Stewart v. F. A ... North Co., 65 Pa.Super. 195; Pagan v. Drake ... Furniture Co., 73 S.C. 364, 53 S.E. 542; Culver v ... State, 42 Tex.Crim. 645, 62 ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT