Henderson v. Wendler
| Decision Date | 19 July 1893 |
| Citation | 17 S.E. 851,39 S.C. 555 |
| Parties | HENDERSON v. WENDLER et ux. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Spartanburg county; James Aldrich, Judge.
Action by William Henderson against Adam Wendler and Martha Wendler his wife. From a judgment of the circuit court dismissing an appeal by defendants from a judgment for plaintiff, rendered by a trial justice, they appeal. Affirmed.
Raiph K. Carson, for appellants.
Stanyarne Wilson, for respondent.
This was an action in a trial justice court against the defendants "for violently with force and arms and threats outrageously and wrongfully going upon premises occupied and worked by the plaintiff, and driving him therefrom, and disposing thereof, to his damage one hundred dollars." The defendants put in a general denial, and a plea that the defendant Martha was, at the time of the commencement of the action, prior thereto, and now is, a woman, the wife of her codefendant, Adam Wendler, and that husband and wife cannot in law commit a joint tort; but, if the act is done by the wife in the presence of the husband, or with his consent, it is his act, and he alone is responsible. The case was heard by the trial justice, L. E. Farley, Esq., without a jury. The testimony is all in the brief, from which the following general facts appeared: The plaintiff made a verbal contract with the defendants to cultivate in the year 1892 a certain field, about 14 acres of land, belonging to the wife, Mrs Wendler. The defendants were to furnish a house, stock, and tools; half guano and supplies to be paid for out of plaintiff's share of the crop, which was to be equally divided between the parties. Some preparation for a crop was made, and in the month of April difficulties arose as to rations, and the manner of making the crop. Adam Wendler, as the agent of his wife, claiming the right to control the work, went into the field, which by agreement was to be cultivated by the plaintiff, took possession of it, and plowed up the ground. Mrs. Wendler was with her husband. He plowed, and she walked behind him with a gun. At that time plaintiff was not in the field, but in sight. He seems to have given up the contest for possession of the field, and brought this action for damages. At the close of the testimony the trial justice, after argument, rendered judgment that the plaintiff was damaged "by being forced to give up his crop at that time of the year [April] in the amount of $25." The trial justice is also of opinion that Martha Wendler, the wife of Adam Wendler, acted with her own free will and accord, and not under compulsion of her husband; and gave judgment against both Wendler and his wife. The defendants appealed to the circuit court, upon various exceptions, which were heard by his honor, Judge Aldrich, who dismissed the appeal, saying that From this judgment the defendants appeal to this court upon the exceptions as follows, charging error "(1) in not holding that the trial justice erred in refusing to allow Adam Wendler to testify as to contents of the letter sent to Henderson; (2) in not holding that the trial justice erred in allowing William Henderson to testify as to conduct, conversation, and demand made by Mrs. Wendler for the house after suit was brought; (3) in not holding that the trial justice erred in refusing defendants' motion for a nonsuit; (4) in holding that a husband and wife can be sued for a joint tort except as husband and wife; (5) in holding that a married woman can be made liable for a tort committed in the presence of her husband, without proof that she acted voluntarily; (6) in giving judgment against the defendant Martha Wendler for the tort of her husband; (7) in holding that defendants' conduct was tortious, or that any tort had been committed (8) in holding that any...
To continue reading
Request your trial