Riggs v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 23 February 1889
• Citation: 8 S.E. 848,30 S.C. 172
• Parties: RIGGS v. WILSON et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

8 S.E. 848

30 S.C. 172

RIGGS v. WILSON et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 23, 1889

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Clarendon county; ALDRICH Judge.

J. N Riggs sued to recover possession of an ox from Benjamin Wilson and S.C. Williams. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Haynsworth & Denkins, for appellant.

M. C Galluchat, for respondents.

SIMPSON C.J.

The plaintiff (appellant) brought action to recover possession of an ox named "Bob" from the defendants (respondents.) The plaintiff claimed title and the right to possession under a mortgage executed by the defendant Wilson with condition broken. It seems that Wilson at some time previous to purchasing "Bob" from the plaintiff had bought a mule from plaintiff, at $50,--$25 in cash, and the remainder on a credit. Shortly after the purchase, Wilson, becoming dissatisfied with the mule, and claiming that he had been deceived in the trade, returned the mule. The plaintiff then sold Wilson the ox "Bob" at $35, retaining the $25 paid him in the mule trade, and took a mortgage on "Bob" for the remaining $10, which not being paid when due the action below was brought before a trial justice to recover "Bob".

Wilson and Williams, defendants, being in possession, answered, first, by an original answer, stating the circumstances of the mule trade, and alleging misrepresentation and fraud therein; and then, by an amended answer, stating the circumstances under which "Bob" went into the possession of Wilson, alleging that "Bob" was older than represented by plaintiff; that Wilson had to take him or nothing for the $25; and that plaintiff compelled him to sign the bill of sale or mortgage; that in "consequence of the detention of the $25, and the duress used by the plaintiff by withholding from defendant his own goods or money, said defendants were damaged as alleged." The defendants demurred to this amended answer, "that it did not state facts constituting a defense." There were two trials before the trial justice and a jury, both of which resulted in a verdict for the defendants, (a new trial having been granted in the first trial.) The trial justice overruled the demurrer, holding that, though the answer was defective, yet that there was enough therein to warrant him in sending the case to the jury. The plaintiff appealed to the circuit court, his honor, Judge A. P. ALDRICH, presiding, who dismissed the appeal, as follows: "On motion of M. C. Galluchat, attorney for respondents, it is ordered that the appeal in the above-stated case be dismissed, with costs to respondents." The plaintiff appeals to this court upon the following exceptions:

"(1) Because, it is respectfully submitted, the presiding judge erred in not sustaining the first ground of appeal to the circuit court, to-wit: 'That the trial justice erred in overruling the demurrer to the last amended answer of the defendant, made by plaintiff, on the ground that the same did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of defense.'

"(2) That, as it is respectfully submitted, the presiding judge erred in not sustaining the grounds of appeal to the circuit court, to-wit: 'That the trial justice committed error in admitting over plaintiff's objections evidence that the property in dispute belongs to defendant Wilson's wife, when no such defense was set up in the answer.'

"(3) That, as it is respectfully submitted, the presiding judge erred in not sustaining the ground of appeal to the circuit court, to-wit: 'That the trial justice erred in refusing the request of the plaintiff to charge the jury "that in finding their verdict they are not to consider as any part of the evidence the first transaction between the parties, to-wit, the mule trade."'

"(4) That, as it is respectfully submitted, the presiding judge erred in not sustaining the ground of appeal to the circuit court, to-wit: 'That the trial justice erred in refusing the request of the plaintiff to charge the jury "that in order

...