Huff v. Watkins

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: MCGOWAN.
• Citation: 20 S.C. 477
• Parties: HUFF v. WATKINS.
• Decision Date: 08 March 1884

20 S.C. 477

HUFF
v.
WATKINS.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Mar. 8th, 1884.

1. The right to costs and the manner of adjusting them are matters not within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and cannot be here adjudged except on appeal from rulings in the court below upon those subjects.

2. Where a plaintiff sued in form ex delicto, and the defendant died before judgment, the action cannot be revived against the personal representative of the deceased. Chaplin v. Barrett, 12 Rich. 284, approved.

3. Enticing away a servant in another's employment is actionable as a tort only, and cannot be treated as an implied contract.

Before HUDSON, J., Newberry, November, 1883.

This was an action by William T. Huff against William Watkins, commenced May 16th, 1879. The complaint alleges that, about January 1st, 1879, the plaintiff employed one Jordan Butler to serve him as an agricultural laborer for and during that year, and that he did so serve the plaintiff for about the period of two months, receiving advances in the meanwhile from the plaintiff; that about March 1st the said Jordan Butler, secretly and without cause, left the employ of the said plaintiff and hired to the defendant; that the plaintiff at once gave notice, by public advertisement and to the defendant personally, that the services of Jordan Butler were due to the plaintiff for said year, and required the defendant to discharge him from his employ; that the defendant failed to discharge the said Jordan Butler, and still

[20 S.C. 478]

continued to employ him, to the plaintiff's damage of $1,000, and demands judgment for $1,000 and the costs and disbursements of this action. Other matters are stated in the opinion.

Messrs. Moorman & Simkins, for appellant, cited Code, § 142; 2 Add. Torts 538, note 1, 540, 558; Toll. Ex. 460-462; 1 Chit. Pl. 113, 153; Code, § 188; 2 Wait Pr. 356-365.

Messrs. Suber & Caldwell, contra, cited 3 Bouv. Inst. 173, §§ 2750-53; 12 Rich. 284;37 N. J. 372;58 N. Y. 282;44 Am. Dec. 159;1 Bay 58; 2 Beav. 159; 16 Rep. 575; 49 L. T. N. S. 5; Code, § 323.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

MR. JUSTICE MCGOWAN.

This was an action to recover damages for enticing a servant employed by the plaintiff to leave his employment. The case has been in this court twice before. See 15 S. C. 83, and 18 Id. 510. At the last hearing here, the verdict for defendant was set aside and the case sent back for a new trial, but before it was heard on Circuit for the third time, the defendant died, (October, 1883,) leaving a will, of which James F. Watkins became the qualified executor. At the next term (November) of the court the plaintiff moved to substitute the executor as defendant, and to continue the action against him under section 142 of the code. The Circuit judge held, that the cause of action, being the wrongful act of defendant, in hiring and retaining in his employment a servant of the plaintiff, is not such as survives against the personal representative of the defendant, and refused the motion. He “ordered that the cause be stricken from the calendars of this court, each party paying his own costs in this court, and nothing herein shall, in any manner, prevent the clerk of this court from taxing the costs on the two judgments heretofore rendered in the...