Du Bose v. Bultman

• Decision Date: 08 November 1949
• Docket Number: 16277.
• Citation: 56 S.E.2d 95,215 S.C. 468
• Parties: DU BOSE et al. v. BULTMAN.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

56 S.E.2d 95

215 S.C. 468

DU BOSE et al. v. BULTMAN.

No. 16277.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

November 8, 1949

Marion Moise, Sumter, for appellant.

C M. Edmunds, Sumter, for respondents.

OXNER Justice.

This is an action on an injunction bond. It comes before us on an appeal from an order striking out a portion of the answer.

Both respondents and appellant claimed the timber on certain land in Sumter County. In April, 1947, appellant brought an action against respondents in which he obtained an injunction restraining respondents, during the pendency of said action 'from entering upon, trespassing on, cutting any timber or trees on, removing any timber, logs, trees, tops or lumber from, or in any manner whatsoever damaging' said land and 'from interfering with or hindering the plaintiff his agents, employees and servants from entering on' said property. The injunction was granted upon the condition that appellant file a bond in the sum of $500. About a month later, upon application of respondents, the Court increased the amount of the required bond to $1000. A substituted bond in this amount was duly filed by appellant. The trial of that action resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendants, thereby dissolving the injunction previously granted.

On October 12, 1948, respondents, who were the defendants in the original suit, brought the present action against appellant to recover damages alleged to have resulted from the issuance of said injunction. Among other damages claimed was the loss of certain lumber on the premises and of timber cut and lying on the ground which respondents say they were unable to remove on account of the injunction; and it was also alleged that respondents suffered damages by being forced to discontinue cutting operations on the land in dispute. In appellant's answer, after admitting the proceedings had in the original suit and denying the allegations of the complaint relating to damages, he alleged as a further defense: 'This defendant alleges that repeated offers were made to the plaintiffs herein to permit the lumber and timber referred to in the complaint to be cut and removed but that the plaintiffs refused to agree to any plan whatsoever for the cutting and removal thereof, and that if said plaintiffs suffered any damage thereby, said damage was caused by the acts of the plaintiffs and in no way by the order referred to or by any act on the part of the...