Sandel v. Cousins, 20139
| Decision Date | 30 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 20139,20139 |
| Citation | 266 S.C. 19,221 S.E.2d 111 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Mary H. SANDEL and Orin Sandel, Appellants, v. Frank N. COUSINS, Respondent. |
Thomas D. Broadwater, Columbia, for appellants.
Thomas H. Pope, Newberry, for respondent.
This action was instituted by appellants to recover actual and punitive damages for the alleged trespass by respondent upon their real property and cutting and removing trees therefrom. This appeal is from an involuntary nonsuit, entered by the trial judge at the close of appellants' testimony, on the ground that appellants had not proved the amount of their damages.
The appeal to this Court is upon the following single exception:
'The court erred in granting the motion for nonsuit, the error being the matters of willfulness or negligence and damages were properly for the jury.'
We refused, in a formal order, a motion by respondent to dismiss the appeal, made on the ground that the foregoing exception did not comply with Rule 4, Section 6, of the Rules of this Court in that it was too general, vague, and indefinite to be considered. Since counsel for respondent has in his brief, again made reference to the deficiencies in the exception and since even a fleeting glance at the exception reveals its complete failure to comply with Rule 4, Section 6, we think an explanation of why we reach the merits of the appeal should be made.
Although it is impossible to determine from the exception the points of law or fact the appellant desires the Court to review, the exception does state that the appeal is from the order of nonsuit and the Statement of the Case contains the following stipulation:
It therefore readily appeared from the exception and the Statement that the sole issue presented for review was whether there was any evidence warranting submission of the issue of damages to the jury. The briefs further readily revealed that there was no proof to establish the exact amount of damages and that appellant relied upon the right to recover nominal damages.
Under the foregoing circumstances, the court was able to readily determine the issue sought to be raised and, seeing merit to the appeal, concluded to consider the exception to the end that a meritorious case is not disposed of on technical grounds.
Appellants presented testimony showing that they purchased a one acre, heavily wooded lot from respondent for the purpose of constructing a house thereon. However, within a few hours after...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brandy v. Flamboyant Inv. Co., Ltd.
...damages requirement is satisfied by an award of nominal damages. Lawrence v. Risen, 598 S.W.2d 474 (Ky.Ct.App.1980); Sandel v. Cousins, 266 S.C. 19, 221 S.E.2d 111 (1975). 6 Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 908(1) & (2) (1) Punitive damages are damages, other than compensatory or nominal da......
-
Bartles v. Livingston
...improperly framed exception, the issue sought to be raised is reasonably clear to this Court and the adverse party. Sandel v. Cousins, 266 S.C. 19, 221 S.E.2d 111 (1975); see Baker v. Weaver, In this case, the Livingstons argue not that an exception was framed in violation of the rules, but......
-
Clo-Car Trucking Co., Inc. v. Clifflure Estates of South Carolina, Inc.
...elect to consider the question presented by his exceptions rather than to dispose of the case on technical grounds. Sandel v. Cousins, 266 S.C. 19, 221 S.E.2d 111 (1975); Baker v. Weaver, 279 S.C. 479, 309 S.E.2d 770 ...
-
Connolly v. People's Life Ins. Co. of South Carolina
...consideration of the remaining exceptions raised but not addressed in its previous opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. 1 Sandel v. Cousins, 266 S.C. 19, 221 S.E.2d 111 (1975), cited by the Court of Appeals in addressing the exceptions, is distinguishable. In Sandel, this Court was easily able t......