Sullivan v. Calhoun

• Decision Date: 01 August 1921
• Docket Number: 10692.
• Citation: 108 S.E. 189,117 S.C. 137
• Parties: SULLIVAN v. CALHOUN ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

108 S.E. 189

117 S.C. 137

SULLIVAN v. CALHOUN ET AL.

No. 10692.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

August 1, 1921

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Greenville County; T. J Maulden, Judge.

Action by Ferdinand Sullivan against Peter Calhoun and another. From judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Appeal dismissed.

J. J McSwain and Oscar Hodges, both of Greenville, for appellants.

Cothran Dean & Cothran, of Greenville, for respondent.

GARY C.J.

The question raised by the exceptions is whether the plaintiff under the allegations of the complaint, was entitled to punitive damages.

The complaint is as follows:

"(1) That in February, 1918, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendants, for the occupation and cultivation of about five acres of land on the Augusta road, near the city of Greenville, which belongs to the defendant Sarah Calhoun, for the year 1919, the defendants furnishing the stock and the plaintiff the labor upon an equal division of the crop when made; that plaintiff pitched the crop and laid it by, and on or about the 18th of July, without just cause or excuse, the defendants ran the plaintiff off said premises, gathered the crop, and refused to make an account to the plaintiff of his part thereof.

(2) That the net proceeds of the crop amounted to about $600, one-half of which the plaintiff was entitled to.

(3) That the conduct of the defendants was in willful violation of the plaintiff's right in the premises, and that he has been damaged by their said conduct in the sum of $500.00."

There was testimony tending to sustain the allegations of the complaint. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $375 actual damages, and for $100 punitive damages, whereupon the defendants appealed.

The appellants contend that the complaint does not allege fraud. It is not necessary to allege fraud in direct terms; it being sufficient if the facts are stated from which it is necessarily implied.

Not only does the complaint allege that the defendants willfully violated the contract, but also that they took exclusive possession of the plaintiff's one-half interest in the crop. This allegation is sufficient to constitute fraud.

In 12 R. C. L. 229, the rule is thus stated:

"Fraud assumes so many hues and forms, that courts are compelled to content themselves with comparatively few general rules for its discovery and defeat, and allow the facts and

...