Hopkins v. Smathers
| Decision Date | 27 September 1920 |
| Docket Number | 10428. |
| Citation | 104 S.E. 30,114 S.C. 488 |
| Parties | HOPKINS v. SMATHERS. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Richland County Court.
Action by James W. Hopkins against Herbert C. Smathers. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
C. T Graydon, of Columbia, for appellant.
A. W Holman and J. S. Verner, both of Columbia, for respondent.
This case was tried before County Judge Whaley and a jury and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $355. After entry of judgment defendant appealed. Exceptions 1 and 2 allege error on the part of his honor in not continuing the case on account of defendant's counsel being a witness and interested in the court of general sessions.
From the affidavit presented to his honor and what took place when motion was made, we are decidedly of the opinion that his honor was in error in not continuing the case as moved for, and erroneously exercised his discretion.
The county court is an inferior court to the circuit court. The terms of circuit court are fixed by law; that of the county court is not. When an attorney is engaged to represent parties in both courts, and there is a conflict of the terms of the two courts, the inferior court must yield and be subordinate to that of the superior court. The attorney must appear and represent his clients in the superior court. Under the facts in the case the exceptions must be sustained. The other exceptions complain of error on the part of his honor in the admission of evidence, not granting the motion of defendant for a nonsuit, or directed verdict, in the exclusion of evidence offered by defendant, and in his charge to the jury, and refusal to charge jury requests of the defendant.
Agency is a question of fact for the jury. So is ratification of agency. If there is any competent evidence in the case as to these issues, his honor was right in submitting it to the jury. So we will have to look at the evidence and see if such inference can be drawn.
Was there any evidence in the case to hold the defendant as principal and Rhodes as agent? The possession by Rhodes of Smathers' car is explained. It was left with Rhodes to be washed. This is done every day. Hopkins admits that he did not know Smathers was in the transaction until he failed to get the car from Rhodes. He did not know anything about the car; had never seen it before. Plaintiff gave check to Rhodes, and Rhodes got it washed. Smathers' name did not appear in the check transaction. Check was not made payable to him or to Rhodes as his agent. Smathers never saw the check or received any part of it. The first time Smathers was called upon was when he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neely v. Love
...J. Law, 637, 76 A. 1024, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 347, 138 Am. St. Rep. 627; Brown v. Myers, 89 N. J. Law, 247, 98 A. 310. In Hopkins v. Smathers, 114 S.C. 488, 104 S.E. 30, court said: "Plaintiff's transactions show he dealt with Rhodes as if he were owner, and not agent of another, and, when h......
-
Scott v. Newell
... ... v ... Hamilton, 100 S.C. 59, 84 S.E. 296 ... Issue ... Agency ... involves a question of fact. Hopkins" v. Smathers, ... 114 S.C. 488, 104 S.E. 30 ... The ... following excerpts from the testimony are material: ... \xC2" ... ...
-
State v. Spencer
...term of the court of general sessions for said county. Counsel for appellant cites in his printed argument the case of Hopkins v. Smathers, 114 S.C. 488, 104 S.E. 30, much weaker case on the facts than the one at bar, in which this court held that it was an abuse of discretion to refuse a c......
-
J.B. Colt Co. v. Tyler
...by his declarations upon any issue involved in the trial of this cause. The evidence was therefore properly excluded. See Hopkins v. Smathers, 114 S.C. 488, 104 S.E. 30; Sanders v. Barnwell Lumber Co., 113 S.C. 499, S.E. 860; Seneca Co. v. Crenshaw, 89 S.C. 470, 71 S.E. 1081; J. B. Colt Co.......