Mcninch v. City Of D.C., (No. 11471.)
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | MARION |
| Citation | 122 S.E. 403 |
| Docket Number | (No. 11471.) |
| Decision Date | 15 April 1924 |
| Parties | McNINCH. v. CITY OF COLUMBIA. |
122 S.E. 403
McNINCH.
v.
CITY OF COLUMBIA.
(No. 11471.)
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
April 15, 1924.
[122 S.E. 404]
Appeal from Richland County Court; M. S. Whaley, Judge.
Action by A. J. McNinch, Jr., against the City of Columbia. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
C. S. Monteith, of Columbia, for appellant.
Polihoff & McElveen, of Columbia, for respondent.
MARION, J. Plaintiff recovered a verdict for damages in the sum of $500, alleged to have been caused by the failure of the defendant city of Columbia "to provide sufficient drains on or under the street to carry rain water away, causing said rain water to accumulate in great volume and to flow with great force, volume, and concentration * * * upon the premises of this plaintiff, " as a result of which surface water overflowed his garage and caused certain damages, among which were loss of profits from his shop and filling station and loss of customers due to interruption of his business for 10 days. From judgment on verdict the defendant appeals upon six exceptions.
Exceptions 1 and 3 are directed to the contention that the county judge committed error in refusing to strike from the complaint the allegation that plaintiff had "lost profits from his shop and his filling station, also lost customers due to his idleness of 10 days, '' and in permitting the plaintiff, over defendant's objection, to adduce evidence to establish those allegations of fact. It appears from the record that this contention was rested in the trial court upon the proposition that the "actual damages" recoverable against a municipal corporation did not embrace damages due to loss of "profits." That is the sole proposition advanced in appellant's printed argument. No authority is cited to sustain it. We think the contention is untenable. If plaintiff was entitled to recover at all, the actual or compensatory damages sustained would be subject to exactly the same measure as would apply in a case against any other tortfeasor. Whether, under the circumstances, the proper measure of damages was the rental value of the garage for the 10 days during which the business is alleged to have been interrupted, or the value of its use to the owner, to be ascertained by inquiry into its past results, etc., are questions which the exceptions do not raise and which we do not undertake to pass upon. Upon the modern rule profits are not excluded from recovery because they are profits, but because there may be no criteria by which to estimate the amount with sufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caldwell v. Caldwell, (No. 12174.)
...the following sustain his order: Derrick v. City of Columbia, 122 S. C. 29, 114 S. E. 857; McNinch v. City of Columbia, 128 S. C. 54, 122 S. E. 403; Kneece v. City of Columbia, 128 S. C. 375, 123 S. E. 100; Wilson v. City of Laurens, 134 S. C. 271, 132 S. E. 590. If the fire was the result ......
-
Chick Springs Water Co. Inc v. State Highway Dep't, No. 13095.
...122 S. C. 29, 114 S. E. 857; Kneece v. City of Columbia, 128 S. C. 375, 123 S. E. 100; McNinch v. City of Columbia, 128 S. C. 54, 122 S. E. 403; Wilson v. City of Laurens, 134 S. C. 271, 132 S. E. 590. Is plaintiff to be denied the compensation guaranteed to him by the Constitution unless h......
-
Watson v. Sprott, (No. 11969.)
...v. So. Ry. Co., 74 S. C. 306, 54 S. E. 553; Sandel v. State, 122 S. C. 268, 115 S. E. 302; McNinch v. City of Columbia, 128 S. C. 54, 122 S. E. 403. All exceptions are overruled, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. WATTS and COTHRAN, JJ., and PURDY and RAMAGE, A. A, JJ.,...
-
Taylor v. Lexington Water Power Co, No. 13362.
...122 S. C. 29, 114 S. E. 857; Kneece v. City of Columbia, 12S S. C. 375, 123 S. E. 100; McNinch v. City of Columbia, 128 S. C. 54, 122 S. E. 403; Wilson v. City of Laurens, 134 S. C. 271, 132 S. E. 590. In the case of White v. Southern R. R. Co., 142 S. C. 284, 140 S. E. 560, 56-1, 57 A. L. ......
-
Caldwell v. Caldwell, (No. 12174.)
...the following sustain his order: Derrick v. City of Columbia, 122 S. C. 29, 114 S. E. 857; McNinch v. City of Columbia, 128 S. C. 54, 122 S. E. 403; Kneece v. City of Columbia, 128 S. C. 375, 123 S. E. 100; Wilson v. City of Laurens, 134 S. C. 271, 132 S. E. 590. If the fire was the result ......
-
Chick Springs Water Co. Inc v. State Highway Dep't, No. 13095.
...122 S. C. 29, 114 S. E. 857; Kneece v. City of Columbia, 128 S. C. 375, 123 S. E. 100; McNinch v. City of Columbia, 128 S. C. 54, 122 S. E. 403; Wilson v. City of Laurens, 134 S. C. 271, 132 S. E. 590. Is plaintiff to be denied the compensation guaranteed to him by the Constitution unless h......
-
Watson v. Sprott, (No. 11969.)
...v. So. Ry. Co., 74 S. C. 306, 54 S. E. 553; Sandel v. State, 122 S. C. 268, 115 S. E. 302; McNinch v. City of Columbia, 128 S. C. 54, 122 S. E. 403. All exceptions are overruled, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. WATTS and COTHRAN, JJ., and PURDY and RAMAGE, A. A, JJ.,...
-
Taylor v. Lexington Water Power Co, No. 13362.
...122 S. C. 29, 114 S. E. 857; Kneece v. City of Columbia, 12S S. C. 375, 123 S. E. 100; McNinch v. City of Columbia, 128 S. C. 54, 122 S. E. 403; Wilson v. City of Laurens, 134 S. C. 271, 132 S. E. 590. In the case of White v. Southern R. R. Co., 142 S. C. 284, 140 S. E. 560, 56-1, 57 A. L. ......