Rhame v. City of Sumter
| Decision Date | 26 January 1920 |
| Docket Number | 10326. |
| Citation | 101 S.E. 832,113 S.C. 151 |
| Parties | RHAME v. CITY OF SUMTER ET AL. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Sumter County; W. H Townsend, Judge.
Action by Annie Rhame, by her guardian ad litem, against the City of Sumter and Eugene Forshee. Judgment for plaintiff, and the first-named defendant appeals. Affirmed.
R. D Epps, of Sumter, for appellant.
John H Clifton, of Sumter, for respondent.
This was an action for damages for an injury alleged to be caused to the plaintiff, an infant, by an accident, caused by automobile, in which her father was driving her and her mother, running into an open ditch or sewer connection upon one of the streets of the city of Sumter. The defendant Forshee, was a plumber in said city, and had opened the ditch in question. The case was tried by Judge Townsend and a jury for Sumter county and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the following form:
The verdict was received without objection, protest, or offer of correction or any motion. After entry of judgment, due notice of appeal was given by both defendants. At the hearing before this court it was announced that Forshee did not perfect his appeal and had abandoned the same.
The city of Sumter by 15 exceptions impute error and seek reversal. Exceptions 1, 2, 3, and 4, allege error in not directing a verdict asked for by appellant, and in an alleged erroneous charge to the jury. These exceptions are overruled. There was ample evidence to go to the jury for their determination, and his honor's charge was applicable to the case and free from error.
Exceptions 5, 6, 8, and 9 are overruled as being without merit. Exceptions 6 and 13 raise, appellant's counsel say, the principal questions on this appeal, whether the verdict should be construed as a joint verdict for $425 and that sum can be satisfied by one payment of such sum; then the exceptions will fall, as they are based upon the contention of the respondent that each defendant must pay such sum. Appellants contend that his honor should have passed on the motion to construe the verdict; that the objection went to the verdict itself, and not merely as to its form.
If the verdict was a joint verdict for $425, then it was objectionable only in form; but, if the jury meant to apportion an $850 verdict, then the objections went...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.
...and battery. The doctrine declared in White v. McNeily was again approved. No allusion is made to punitive damages. In Rhame v. Sumter, 113 S.C. 151, 101 S.E. 832, city and a plumber were sued jointly for damages resulting from an automobile running into an open ditch in the street, left in......
-
Jenkins v. Southern Ry. Co.
...simply as another instance of the recognition of the White v. McNeily rule, applying to active, personal participation. In the Rhame v. Sumter Case, supra, the city was sought to be liable on account of its breach of duty to keep the street safe; the plumber, an independent party, for his p......
-
Thornhill v. Davis
... ... case lived only a halfhour; in Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v ... Leslie, 238 U.S. 599, 35 S.Ct. 844, 59 L.Ed. 1482; the ... time was "less than ... 72] By failure to do so he waived the right to ... raise the question by this exception. Rhame v. City of ... Sumter, 113 S.C. 151, 101 S.E. 832." ... The ... jury must ... ...
-
Rhodes v. Southern Ry. Co.
... ... team of mules on a street in the city of Greenwood adjacent ... to the railroad track of the railway company, which street ... was ... open court before the jury was discharged. Rhame v. City ... of Sumter, 113 S.C. 151, 101 S.E. 832; McAlister v ... Thomas & Howard Co., 116 ... ...