Keels v. Powell Et At, No. 16153.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | FISHBURNE, Justice |
| Citation | 50 S.E.2d 704 |
| Parties | KEELS. v. POWELL et at. |
| Decision Date | 06 December 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 16153. |
50 S.E.2d 704
KEELS.
v.
POWELL et at.
No. 16153.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Dec. 6, 1948.
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Florence County; R. W. Sharkey, Judge.
Action by George W. Keels, against L. R. Powell, Jr. and another, receivers of the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, to recover damages for fraudulently inducing plaintiffs client to breach an alleged contract of employment. From an order overruling a motion to direct a verdict for the defendants, the defendants appeal.
Appeal dismissed and case remanded.
Willcox, Hardee, Houck & Palmer, of Florence, and Dargan, Paulling & James, of Darlington, for appellants.
G. Badger Baker, of Florence, for respondent.
FISHBURNE, Justice.
This action was brought by the plaintiff, an attorney at law, for the recovery of damages from the defendants on the ground that they fraudulently, wilfully and wantonly induced plaintiff's client, one Willie Matthews, to breach an alleged contract of employment existing between plaintiff and Matthews. The plaintiff, according to the allegations of the complaint, was retained to institute an action against the defendants for the purpose of recovering a monetary judgment or effecting an
[50 S.E.2d 705]amicable judgment of Matthews' claim for personal injuries sustained by him while passing over a crossing on the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company in Florence County. Under the terms of the alleged agreement, the plaintiff was to receive 331/3% of any judgment recovered or settlement obtained. The claim was settled without suit by the payment by the defendants to Matthews of the sum of $2500.00; and it is alleged that this settlement was effected after notice to the defendants of plaintiff's employment for the purposes above mentioned.
At the close of all the testimony, defendants moved for the direction of a verdict upon the ground that there was no evidence tending to prove that the defendants fraudulently and wilfully induced Matthews to breach his alleged agreement with the plaintiff. This motion was overruled and the case was submitted to the jury. The jury failed to agree and a mistrial was ordered. The cause is brought to this court upon appeal by the defendants from the refusal of the trial judge to direct a verdict. Error is likewise assigned because of the admission of certain evidence alleged to be inadmissible.
The respondent objects to the consideration of the appeal. He takes the position that the rulings and order referred to in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. State , CR–07–1997.
...which is later declared a mistrial results ‘in no binding adjudication of the rights of the parties.’ Keels v. Powell, 213 S.C. 570, 572, 50 S.E.2d 704, 705 (1948). [60 So.3d 362] “.... “Here, the case having resulted in a mistrial, it was a nullity and therefore began anew when called agai......
-
Graham v. State, CR-15-0201
...which is later declared a mistrial results "in no binding adjudication of the rights of the parties." Keels v. Powell, 213 S.C. 570, 572, 50 S.E.2d 704, 705 (1948)." ‘...." ‘Here, the case having resulted in a mistrial, it was a nullity and therefore began anew when called again for trial. ......
-
Morris v. State, No. CR-07-1997 (Ala. Crim. App. 2/5/2010), No. CR-07-1997.
...which is later declared a mistrial results `in no binding adjudication of the rights of the parties.' Keels v. Powell, 213 S.C. 570, 572, 50 S.E. 2d 704, 705 Page 77 "Here, the case having resulted in a mistrial, it was a nullity and therefore began anew when called again for trial. State v......
-
State v. Woods, No. 26623.
...which is later declared a mistrial results "in no binding adjudication of the rights of the parties." Keels v. Powell, 213 S.C. 570, 572, 50 S.E.2d 704, 705 In State v. Manning, 329 S.C. 1, 495 S.E.2d 191 (1997), upon a retrial in a capital case, the trial court granted the state's motion t......
-
Graham v. State, CR-15-0201
...which is later declared a mistrial results "in no binding adjudication of the rights of the parties." Keels v. Powell, 213 S.C. 570, 572, 50 S.E.2d 704, 705 (1948)." ‘...." ‘Here, the case having resulted in a mistrial, it was a nullity and therefore began anew when called again for trial. ......
-
Morris v. State , CR–07–1997.
...which is later declared a mistrial results ‘in no binding adjudication of the rights of the parties.’ Keels v. Powell, 213 S.C. 570, 572, 50 S.E.2d 704, 705 (1948). [60 So.3d 362] “.... “Here, the case having resulted in a mistrial, it was a nullity and therefore began anew when called agai......
-
State v. Woods, 26623.
...which is later declared a mistrial results "in no binding adjudication of the rights of the parties." Keels v. Powell, 213 S.C. 570, 572, 50 S.E.2d 704, 705 In State v. Manning, 329 S.C. 1, 495 S.E.2d 191 (1997), upon a retrial in a capital case, the trial court granted the state's motion t......
-
Keels v. Powell, 16153.
...50 S.E.2d 704 213 S.C. 570 KEELS v. POWELL et al. No. 16153.Supreme Court of South CarolinaDecember 6, [213 S.C. 571] Willcox, Hardee, Houck & Palmer, of Florence, and Dargan, Paulling & James, of Darlington, for appellants. G. Badger Baker, of Florence, for respondent. FISHBURNE, Justice. ......