Ralston Purina Co. v. O'Dell
| Decision Date | 02 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 18514,18514 |
| Citation | 148 S.E.2d 736,248 S.C. 37 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | RALSTON PURINA COMPANY, Appellant, v. Jack O'DELL, d/b/a O'Dell Feed & Supply, Bill E. O'Dell, Louise JeterO'Dell and Nancy Jolly O'Dell, Respondents. |
Larkin H. Jennings, Jr., Union, Robinson, McFadden & Moore, Columbia, for appellant.
Mike S. Jolly, David N. Wilburn, Jr., Long & Long, Union, for respondents.
Ralston Purina Company, the appellant herein, instituted this action against Jack O'Dell to recover the sum of $9,102.69 for goods and merchandise sold him between December 5, 1960 and June 28, 1961. Joined as defendants were Bill E. O'Dell, Louise Jeter O'Dell and Nancy Jolly O'Dell under agreement whereby they allegedly guaranteed payment of the said account. Jack O'Dell denied the existence and the amount of the indebtedness and filed a counterclaim for the alleged fraudulent procurement and use of the credit instruments. The other three defendants denied execution of the guaranty agreement.
The case came on for trial before The Honorable James W. Workman, Judge of the Union County Civil Court, and a jury, resulting in a verdict for Ralston against Jack O'Dell in the amount of $4,000.00. The trial judge on several occasions refused to permit the introduction into the evidence of the guaranty agreement, other than against Jack C. O'Dell. When this happened, Ralston moved for a voluntary nonsuit without prejudice as to the defendants Bill E. O'Dell, Louise Jeter O'Dell and Nancy Jolly O'Dell. This motion was refused by the trial judge upon the ground that if such were granted it would permit Ralston to sue the defendants Ad infinitum and would impose upon the defendants the necessity of defending another suit.
At the close of the testimony an involuntary nonsuit was granted as to the defendants other than Jack O'Dell; a verdict was directed in favor of Ralston on his counterclaim, and the issue of his liability submitted to the jury. Ralston made a motion for a directed verdict for the amount of its account against Jack O'Dell. This motion was refused. After the rendition of the verdict in favor of Ralston against Jack O'Dell in the amount of $4,000.00, Ralston then made a motion for judgment Non obstante veredicto in the amount of $8,740.47, this being the amount sued for less an admitted payment in the amount of $362.22, which was paid after suit was commenced. This motion was also refused. This appeal followed.
Ralston has filed numerous exceptions in its appeal from the judgment of the lower court. However, it is only necessary in our view of the case to consider two questions raised by such exceptions.
The first question to be determined is whether the trial judge erred in failing to grant the motion of Ralston for a directed verdict against Jack O'Dell in the amount of $8,740.47, and, likewise, in failing to grant Ralston's Non obstante veredicto motion for judgment in this amount.
Witnesses for Ralston testified in detail as to the amount due it by Jack O'Dell. A detailed verified statement of this account was attached to the complaint. This evidence, which was undisputed, clearly shows that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gary v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
...that there was no error on the part of the trial judge in granting plaintiff's motion for a voluntary nonsuit. See Ralston Purina Co. v. O'Dell, 248 S.C. 37, 148 S.E.2d 736; Gulledge v. Young, 242 S.C. 287, 130 S.E.2d 695; Fairey v. Gardner, 233 S.C. 297, 104 S.E.2d 374; Moore v. Southern C......
-
Marlow v. Marlow
...for discontinuance; but if prejudice is shown, the matter becomes one of discretion for the trial judge. Id.; Ralston Purina Co. v. Odell, 248 S.C. 37, 148 S.E.2d 736 (1966); Harmon v. Harmon, 257 S.C. 154, 184 S.E.2d 553 (1971). The mere possibility of defending another suit if the motion ......
-
Walker v. Jones
...S.C. 154, 184 S.E.2d 553 (1971). That prejudice is not merely the possibility of defending another suit. E. g., Ralston Purina Co. v. O'Dell, 248 S.C. 37, 148 S.E.2d 736 (1966); Home Owner's Loan Corp. v. Huffman, 134 F.2d 314 (8th Cir. 1943) (interpreting F.R.C.P. 41(a)(2), identical to Ci......
-
Knight v. Waggoner
...if prejudice to the other party is shown, the matter becomes one of discretion for the trial judge. Id.; Ralston Purina Co. v. O'Dell, 248 S.C. 37, 41-42, 148 S.E.2d 736, 737 (1966). The same rules regarding voluntary dismissal of a plaintiff's claim apply to voluntary dismissal of a defend......