Sloan v. Lee, (No. 11029.)
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | MARION |
| Citation | 114 S.E. 408 |
| Docket Number | (No. 11029.) |
| Decision Date | 09 October 1922 |
| Parties | SLOAN. v. LEE et al. |
114 S.E. 408
SLOAN.
v.
LEE et al.
(No. 11029.)
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Oct. 9, 1922.
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court, of Spartanburg County; Edward McIver, Judge.
Action by C. B. Sloan against Maggie Lee and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
L. W. Perrin, of Spartanburg, for appellant.
R. B. Paslay and J. D. Andrews, both of Spartanburg, for respondents.
MARION, J. The defendants contracted with the plaintiff to rent a hotel in the city of Spartanburg, and gave a bond to secure faithful performance. This action was brought by plaintiff to recover damages on account of the alleged breach of the bond.
[114 S.E. 409]The defendants admitted the execution of the rental contract and of the bond, but set up the defense that the contract was procured by misrepresentation and fraud. The case was tried before Hon. Edward McIver, circuit judge, and a jury. From judgment on verdict for defendants, the plaintiff appeals.
Certain of the allegations of the answer were to the effect that defendants were induced to execute the rental contract and the bond by plaintiffs false representation that the hotel was a "first-class, clean, reputable, and paying enterprise"; that in fact the "hotel had a bad reputation, and, directly after defendants took charge of the same, a number of persons approached them for the purpose of renting rooms for immoral purposes"; and that, "when they became aware of the reputation of the hotel, they promptly declined to retain same, and turned the hotel back to the plaintiff."
1. Appellant's first contention (exceptions 1 to 5, inclusive) is that the trial judge erred in admitting over objection certain testimony of the defendants in regard to conversations with third parties not held in the presence of the plaintiff. It is suggested that these conversations were hearsay, and amounted merely to self-serving declarations on the part of the defendants. The record discloses that no specific grounds of objection to the admission of the testimony were stated at the trial. A ground of objection not ruled upon by the trial judge cannot be urged in this court. Allen v. Cooley, 53 S. C. 80, 30 S. E. 721; Norris v. Clinkscales, 59 S. C. 243, 37 S. E. 821; Smith v. Mills, etc., 100 S. C.120, 84 S. T. 422; State v. Cooper (S. C.) 313 S. E. 132.
The only ruling of the presiding judge appears to have been to the effect that Mrs. Lee, one of the defendants, could testify that "she found that men were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Galloway v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 4475.
...S.E. 225; Scott v. Seymour, 105 S.C. 42, 89 S.E. 398; Bellamy v. Grand Lodge, K.P., 110 S.C. 315, 96 S.E. 293; Sloan v. Lee, 121 S.C. 426, 114 S.E. 408, 409; Towill v. Southern R. Co., 131 S.C. 423, 127 S.E. 559. These decisions, however, as above stated, are not applicable to trials in a d......
-
Scott v. Newell, (No. 12455.)
...a false statement, or by failing to speak when equity and good conscience require one to speak." Sloan v. Lee et al., 121 S. C. 429, 114 S. E. 408. The suppression of the truth, with misleading suggestions, may be as effective to create an erroneous or false impression as a direct falsehood......
-
Watson v. Sprott, (No. 11969.)
...E. 928; Latimer v. Anderson County, 95 S. C. 187, 78 S. E. 879; Kelly v. Rose, 120 S. C. 223, 112 S. E. 919; Sloan v. Lee, 121 S. C. 426, 114 S. E. 408), and is not entitled to have the giving of an irrelevant instruction declared reversible error where he failed to call the trial judge's a......
-
State v. Stokes, (No. 11861.)
...S. E. 821; Smith v. Mills, etc., 100 S. C. 120, 84 S. E. 422; State v. Cooper, 120 S. C. 2S0, 113 S. E. 132; Sloan v. Lee, 121 S. C. 426, 114 S. E. 408. Exceptions 3 and 4 are directed to the contention that, after the trial court had sustained the defendant's objection to the solicitor's q......
-
Galloway v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 4475.
...S.E. 225; Scott v. Seymour, 105 S.C. 42, 89 S.E. 398; Bellamy v. Grand Lodge, K.P., 110 S.C. 315, 96 S.E. 293; Sloan v. Lee, 121 S.C. 426, 114 S.E. 408, 409; Towill v. Southern R. Co., 131 S.C. 423, 127 S.E. 559. These decisions, however, as above stated, are not applicable to trials in a d......
-
Scott v. Newell, 12455.
...making a false statement, or by failing to speak when equity and good conscience require one to speak." Sloan v. Lee et al., 121 S.C. 429 114 S.E. 408. The suppression of the truth, with misleading suggestions, may be as effective to create an erroneous or false impression as a direct false......
-
Scott v. Newell, (No. 12455.)
...a false statement, or by failing to speak when equity and good conscience require one to speak." Sloan v. Lee et al., 121 S. C. 429, 114 S. E. 408. The suppression of the truth, with misleading suggestions, may be as effective to create an erroneous or false impression as a direct falsehood......
-
Watson v. Sprott, (No. 11969.)
...E. 928; Latimer v. Anderson County, 95 S. C. 187, 78 S. E. 879; Kelly v. Rose, 120 S. C. 223, 112 S. E. 919; Sloan v. Lee, 121 S. C. 426, 114 S. E. 408), and is not entitled to have the giving of an irrelevant instruction declared reversible error where he failed to call the trial judge's a......