Prickett v. A & B Elec. Service, Inc., 0039
| Decision Date | 09 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 0039,0039 |
| Citation | 280 S.C. 123,311 S.E.2d 402 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Henry D. PRICKETT, Appellant, v. A & B ELECTRICAL SERVICE, INC., and Jerry O. Alexander, Respondents. |
Clifford F. Gaddy, Jr., of Gaddy & Davenport, Greenville, for appellant.
John I. Mauldin of Yarborough, Mauldin & Allison, Greenville, for respondents.
This appeal arises from a fraud and deceit action and verdict rendered thereon. We reverse.
Both A & B Electrical Service, Inc. and American Scenic, Inc. were corporations, which at the time of the institution of this action were defunct. Respondent Alexander was formerly the president of A & B; appellant Prickett was formerly the president of Scenic.
Prickett, individually, and A & B were sued for an account owed. A & B defaulted. By cross-complaint against Alexander, asking that the corporate veil of A & B be pierced, Prickett prayed that in the event judgment be awarded against him, that Prickett have judgment over and against Alexander.
Alexander counterclaimed for fraud and deceit. The cause of action related to an alleged false representation by Prickett that he would apply the proceeds of a check to be received by him to an account which Anderson's corporation had assumed from Prickett's corporation. This promise was allegedly made in order to get Anderson's corporation to pay a present debt of Prickett's corporation. The counterclaim then contained the following allegation:
As a direct and proximate result of the representations made by the Defendant-Plaintiff, Henry D. Prickett, and reliance thereon by the Defendant Jerry O. Alexander, and the subsequent actions taken by the Defendant-Plaintiff Henry D. Prickett, the Defendant, Jerry O. Alexander, has incurred numerous and substantial damages in the form of monetary expense and otherwise, including but not limited necessarily to legal fees, wage loss and other incidental injuries and damages resulting from the institution of this law suit.
The case was tried and the jury returned a verdict awarding actual and punitive damages to Alexander.
Appellant made a timely motion for directed verdict on the grounds that expenses incurred in the defense of the cross-complaint were not allowable as consequential damages and that there was no other evidence of compensable actual damages. The trial judge overruled the motion and made a contra instruction to the jury. This ruling and this instruction were error and the case must be reversed.
In a remarkably similar case, our Supreme Court established the pertinent law of this state. We quote from ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Save Charleston Foundation v. Murray, 0502
...with defending an action brought on the promissory note are unrecoverable in a conversion action. See Prickett v. A & B Electrical Service, Inc., 280 S.C. 123, 311 S.E.2d 402 (Ct.App.1984). B. The circuit court sustained the Foundation's demurrer to Murray's counterclaim for outrage. Murray......
-
Champion v. Whaley
... ... Dantzler Real Estate, Inc. v. Boland, 276 S.C. 275, 277 S.E.2d 705 (1981); ... ...
-
COLLINS MUSIC CO. INC. v. FMW CORP.
...Company, 248 S.C. 18, 27, 148 S.E.2d 742, 746 (1966) (citing 25 C.J.S. Damages § 50); see also Prickett v. A & B Electrical Service, Inc., 280 S.C. 123, 311 S.E.2d 402 (Ct.App.1984) (finding that expenses incurred defending a cross-complaint are not considered consequential damages, so with......