99 S.E. 823 (S.C. 1919), 10229, Coggins v. Cannon

Docket Nº:10229.
Citation:99 S.E. 823, 112 S.C. 225
Opinion Judge:WATTS, J.
Party Name:COGGINS v. CANNON.
Attorney:John Gary Evans, of Spartanburg, for appellant. Sanders & De Pass, of Spartanburg, for respondent.
Case Date:July 14, 1919
Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 823

99 S.E. 823 (S.C. 1919)

112 S.C. 225

COGGINS

v.

CANNON.

No. 10229.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 14, 1919

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Spartanburg County; W. P. Greene, Special Judge.

Action by Ila Coggins against C. F. Cannon. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Exceptions 3-5, mentioned in the opinion, are as follows:

3. In that his honor erred in modifying the second request to charge of the defendant with the modification as follows: "I charge you that, even though you should find that the defendant contracted to marry the plaintiff at some future time not fixed, and that before the marriage was consummated the defendant learns or has reasonable [112 S.C. 226] grounds to believe that the plaintiff was impure and unchaste, and acted upon such information and breached said contract, then, under the law, the plaintiff cannot recover, and your verdict should be for the defendant." His honor modified the request as follows: "I charge you that, with this modification, that if he received such information it must have been based upon fact, and that he would have no right to act upon information not based upon fact. In other words, that there must be foundation for the information." The error being that the request stated a correct principle of law applicable to the case, and that the modification destroyed the effect of the request.

4. In that his honor erred in refusing to charge the jury the fourth request of the plaintiff, as follows: "I charge you that under the complaint in this case the plaintiff alleges that she was damaged and is still suffering great physical and mental anguish, and has been humiliated to her damage in the sum of $10,000. I charge you that there is no evidence of physical suffering on the part of the plaintiff, nor is there evidence that she was humiliated, and under the law she cannot recover for mental anguish, and therefore your verdict should be for the defendant." The error being that there was not a scintilla of evidence upon the matters referred to in the request, and the same embodied the law of the case.

5. In that his honor erred in refusing to charge the sixth request of the defendant, to wit: "I charge you that there is no evidence in this case upon which you can base a verdict for punitive damages, and you must not consider that in reaching your verdict." The error being that it was a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP