76 S.E. 986 (S.C. 1913), Stanford v. Cudd
|Citation:||76 S.E. 986, 93 S.C. 367|
|Opinion Judge:||HYDRICK, J.|
|Party Name:||STANFORD v. CUDD.|
|Attorney:||Ben Hill Brown and C. P. Sims, both of Spartanburg, for appellant. T. M. Lyles, of Spartanburg, for respondent.|
|Case Date:||January 10, 1913|
|Court:||Supreme Court of South Carolina|
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court, Spartanburg County; Geo. W. Gage, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Action by D. T. P. Stanford against J. N. Cudd. From judgment affirming a judgment of magistrate's court for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Plaintiff sued defendant in the court of a magistrate to recover $80, the value of some advertising signs, ordered by S.E. True, for the advertisement of True's department store. Plaintiff sought to hold defendant liable on the ground that he was the owner of True's department store, and that True was his agent in the management of the business. The case was tried before the magistrate and a jury, and the jury found for plaintiff, whereupon defendant appealed to the circuit court. On hearing the appeal the court affirmed the judgment of the magistrate's court in a short order in which no reasons are stated for the conclusion reached. From that judgment the defendant appealed to this court.
The first nine exceptions assign error to the circuit court in sustaining the magistrate's refusal to charge certain propositions of law, which are stated only in the exceptions. One exception assigns error in sustaining the magistrate's refusal of defendant's motion for nonsuit. The others [93 S.C. 369] assign error in sustaining the rulings of the magistrate in admitting certain evidence, which is mentioned in the exceptions.
Besides the objections to the testimony referred to in the exceptions, the record contains only the following statement as to what took place in the magistrate's court: "The jury found for the plaintiff, and the defendant made a motion for a new trial on the ground that there was not sufficient testimony to support the verdict, and also on the ground that the court had erred in refusing the several requests to charge of the defendant, and the magistrate overruled the motion." It will be seen that it does not show, except inferentially, that any requests to charge were submitted to the magistrate and refused by him; nor does it show that a motion for nonsuit was made, or, if made, the grounds upon which it was made, nor does it show what were the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP