Bryant v. Smith Et Ux, 14717.
Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Citation | 187 S.C. 453,198 S.E. 20 |
Decision Date | 08 July 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 14717.,14717. |
Parties | BRYANT. v. SMITH et ux. |
BRYANT.
v.
SMITH et ux.
No. 14717.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
July 8, 1938.
[198 S.E. 21]
Appeal from Richland County Court; A. W. Holman, Judge.
Action by B. D. Bryant against Enoch Smith and wife for assault and battery. From an order overruling a demurrer, defendants appeal.
Affirmed as modified, and the cause remanded.
C. T. Graydon, of Columbia, for appellants.
A. M. Deal, of Columbia, for respondent.
FISHBURNE, Justice.
The respondent brought this action in the Richland County Court to recover damages for an alleged assault and battery. This appeal is taken from an order overruling the demurrer interposed to the complaint.
We will let the complaint speak for itself. It is therein alleged:
"1. That plaintiff is a citizen of Spartanburg County, South Carolina, a Confederate veteran, a member of the South Carolina Division, United Confederate Veterans, and is eighty-nine years of age.
"2. That Enoch Smith and his wife, Mrs. Enoch Smith, are citizens of Richland County, South Carolina.
"3. That at the Fifty-fifth Annual Reunion of South Carolina Confederate Veterans, held at Columbia, S. C, July 30, 31, and August 1, 1936, Gen. E. N. Yarborough, Commander of the South Carolina Division, was, on motion, authorized to appoint delegates to attend and cast the official vote of the South Carolina Division at the next General Reunion of United Confederate Veterans; and that at the First Fall Reunion of said South Carolina Division, held at Columbia, S.C., October 20-21, 1936, he announced the appointment of B. D. Bryant, W. E. Riley and E. N. Yarborough as such official delegates, and these appointments, on motion, were unanimously approved by the veterans attending said reunion.
"4. That at the General Reunion of United Confederate Veterans, held at Jackson, Mississippi, June 11, 1937, the said official delegates, B. D. Bryant, W. E. Riley and E. N. Yarborough, attended and cast the vote of the South Carolina division as such delegates, and that when it came to the election of a Commander-in-chief of the United Confederate Veterans for the ensuing year, said delegates cast the vote of the South Carolina division for Gen. Lee, and Gen. Lee, having received a majority of the votes cast, was thereby duly elected.
"5. That thereupon supporters of Gen. Claypool, who had been defeated in the election for commander-in-chief by Gen. Lee, created considerable disorder in the meeting, and a motion was made to throw out the vote of the South Carolina division. Gen. Atkinson, presiding, put the motion, and called for the ayes, and then the noes. While the vote was being taken on the noes, by a standing vote, Enoch Smith called loudly and repeatedly, 'make them sit down. They are voting against us.' And thereupon his wife, Mrs. Enoch Smith, left his side and rushed over to Gen. Summer, commander of the First South Carolina Brigade, knocking over several chairs and a table, put her hands on his shoulders and pushed him down, and then rushed to plaintiff, B. D. Bryant, and struck him on his face, shocking and dazing him and knocking his glasses on the floor.
"6. That defendant Enoch Smith by his language and conduct instigated, urged and abetted his wife, Mrs. Enoch Smith, to make the physical assault upon the plaintiff set out in Paragraph 5.
"7. That by reason of the physical assault made upon him by Mrs. Enoch Smith the plaintiff suffered severe physical pain, great nervous shock, mental anguish and humiliation, which necessitated his having to be carried immediately out of the meeting hall and to the headquarters room by his grand-daughter and several other ladies, where he was laid upon a reclining chair and given medical treatment; and that by reason of said physical assault made upon plaintiff -- willfully, wantonly, maliciously and without any...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McDONALD v. SENN, 5022
...14 L.R.A.,N.S., 1009; Norris v. Corkill, 32 Kan. 409, 4 P. 862, 49 Am.Rep. 489; Lawer v. Kline, 41 Wyo. 167, 282 P. 1061; Bryant v. Smith, 187 S.C. 453, 198 S.E. 20.204 P.2d 1000 A few of the older cases hold the common law rule governs in the absence of a specific repealing statute. McElfr......
-
McDonald v. Senn, 5022.
...14 L.R.A.,N.S., 1009; Norris v. Corkill, 32 Kan. 409, 4 P. 862, 49 Am.Rep. 489; Lawer v. Kline, 41 Wyo. 167, 282 P. 1061; Bryant v. Smith, 187 S.C. 453, 198 S.E. 20. [204 P.2d 1000] A few of the older cases hold the common law rule governs in the absence of a specific repealing statute. McE......
-
Cook v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 15203.
...them ability to contract, power to control their earnings, and endowing them with the capacity to sue and be sued. In Bryant v. Smith, 187 S.C. 453, 198 S.E. 20, we had occasion to review at length the changes which have been wrought in the legal status of married women by comparatively rec......
-
Cook v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co, 15203.
...them ability to contract, power to control their earnings, and en dowing them with the capacity to sue and be sued. In Bryant v. Smith, 187 S.C. 453, 198 S.E. 20, we had occasion to review at length the changes which have been wrought in the legal status of married women by comparatively re......