Skinner & Ruddock, Inc. v. London Guarantee & Acc. Co., 17880
Decision Date | 01 March 1962 |
Docket Number | No. 17880,17880 |
Citation | 239 S.C. 614,124 S.E.2d 178 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | SKINNER & RUDDOCK, INC., Respondent, v. LONDON GUARANTEE AND ACCIDENT COMPANY, Limited, and the Estate of Lawrence M. Pinckney, Citizens & Southern National Bank, as Executor of the Estate of Lawrence M. Pinckney, and C. Fletcher Carter, Jr., d/b/a Pickney-Carter Company, a Partnership, of which Citizens & Southern National Bank as Executor of the Estate of Lawrence M. Pinckney, and C. Fletcher Carter, Jr., d/b/a Pinckney-Carter Company, a Partnership, is Appellant. |
Bailey & Buckley, Charleston, for appellant.
John C. Conway, Charleston, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order of the lower Court overruling a demurrer to the complaint, interposed by the appellant, Pinckney-Carter Company, a partnership, upon the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against it. This action was instituted by the plaintiff, Skinner & Ruddock, Inc., against the London Guarantee and Accident Company, Limited, and the appellant, Pinckney-Carter Company, for the recovery of loss sustained by the plaintiff under a policy of insurance allegedly issued by the defendant insurance company through its agent, the appellant. Only the appellant interposed a demurrer to the complaint and the sole question involved in the appeal is whether or not the complaint states a cause of action against it.
The complaint alleges that the defendant insurance company, through the appellant as its agent, issued a policy of insurance in September, 1954 to indemnify plaintiff in its contracting business against any losses which might be incurred by it in the course of certain construction then under contract, and on February 8, 1955, through the appellant as its agent, issued a rider or endorsement to said policy extending the coverage thereunder to include any loss incurred by the plaintiff in the wrecking or demolition of certain buildings, known as the Marks property, at the corner of King and Calhoun Streets, in Charleston, South Carolina. It is alleged that, while the plaintiff was engaged in demolishing the buildings at the corner of King and Calhoun Streets, this work being covered under the foregoing policy endorsement, the wall of an adjacent building fell, causing damage to the adjoining property. The complaint then alleges in paragraphs seven and eight as follows:
Further allegations of the complaint set forth that the defendants owe to the plaintiff the sum of $7.524.60, the cost of the repair of the adjacent wall which was damaged, and that after repeated damands the defendants have refused to pay the same. Judgment is sought against the defendants in the foregoing amount, plus interest.
It is apparent that the plaintiff has brought its action against the defendant insurance company upon the policy of insurance allegedly issued through its agent, the appellant, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Save Charleston Foundation v. Murray, 0502
...deducible therefrom are to be construed liberally in favor of the counterclaimant. See Skinner & Ruddock, Inc. v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., 239 S.C. 614, 124 S.E.2d 178 (1962). An action may be maintained for the conversion of a promissory note. 18 Am.Jur.2d Conversion Section 18 at ......
-
Renney v. Dobbs House, Inc.
...agent is not liable on a contract entered into on behalf of a known principal. It is stated in Skinner & Ruddock, Inc. v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., 239 S.C. 614, 124 S.E.2d 178 (1962): "(W)here an agent enters into a contract for a known principal, while acting within his authority a......
-
Stewart v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
...acting within her authority as an agent, she is not personally liable on the resulting contract. Skinner & Ruddock, Inc. v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., 124 S.E.2d 178, 180 (S.C. 1962). The liability, if any, is of the principal alone. Id. Jordan was an agent of State Farm, a known prin......
-
Chilton v. City of Columbia
...reasonably deducible therefrom, are to be liberally construed in plaintiff's favor. Skinner and Ruddock, Inc. v. London Guarantee & Accident Co. et al., 239 S.C. 614, 124 S.E.2d 178. If the appellant has a cause of action, it is by virtue of Section 47--70 of the 1962 Code of Laws, which pe......