Thompson v. Thompson, (No. 12254.)
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | COTHRAN |
| Citation | 139 S.E. 182 |
| Parties | THOMPSON. v. THOMPSON. |
| Docket Number | (No. 12254.) |
| Decision Date | 25 August 1927 |
139 S.E. 182
THOMPSON.
v.
THOMPSON.
(No. 12254.)
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Aug. 25, 1927.
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Horry County; Jno. S. Wilson, Judge.
Action by M. B. Thompson against A. C. Thompson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The following is a portion of the court's charge:
"Now, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen, those are the pleadings in this case, the complaint of the plaintiff and the answer of the defendant. Now, as to a valid contract, what is a valid contract? It must be about a lawful subject, and I charge you this is a lawful subject. The parties making the contract must be capable of making a contract, and I charge you that there is no evidence contrary to the fact that both these parties are capable of making a contract. And the contract must be definite enough to be in force; and that will be for you to decide, as to what their agreement was, for you have heard the testimony on both sides. There must be some definite understanding that a man is ready to do something right then, or will do it on certain conditions; and it must be shown on both sides that the plaintiff who claims a breach of the contract was ready to perform his part of those conditions."
Appellant's Exceptions 3, 4, and 5 follow:
"III. His honor erred in charging the jury as follows: 'And the contract must be definite
[139 S.E. 183]enough to enforce, and that will be for you to decide'—the error being that his honor in so charging submitted a question of law to the jury and left it to them to look to the evidence for a contract without regard to the pleadings, which should bind the parties and the court.
"IV. His honor erred in charging the jury as follows: 'As to what the contract was, * * * you have heard their testimony, and it is for you to say what the agreement was, what each agreed to and what each has done; that is a matter for you, and you are to determine that'—the error being: (a) That same was a charge on the facts in that it charges that there was a contract.(b) That it eliminates the question of no contract and the statute of frauds as pleaded in defendant's answer from consideration. (c) That it leaves it to the jury to find a contract in the testimony without regard to the complaint.
"V. His honor erred in charging the jury as follows: 'If a party acts in a willful, malicious, or wanton manner, and causes damage, then the jury can, in a case like that, give punitive, vindictive, or what you have heard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benya v. Gamble, No. 0256
...a finding either way might reasonably be made. 37 C.J.S. Frauds, Statute of § 291 at 833 (1943); see Thompson v. Thompson, 141 S.C. 56, 139 S.E. 182 Although there is evidence in the record to support the conclusion that no enforceable contract exists between the parties, Page 61 there is a......
-
Holder v. Camp, No. 14287.
...L. R. R. Co., 86 S.C. 514, 68 S.E.: 770; Halford v. Southern Ry. Company, 112 S.C. 266, 99 S.E. 839; Thompson v. Thompson, 141 S.C. 56, 139 S.E. 182. By exceptions 2, 3, 5, and 6, appellant assigns error in the refusal of the trial judge to grant its motions for a nonsuit and for a directed......
-
John T. Stanley Co. Inc v. Kaufman, No. 13701.
...unnecessary to cite authority in support of this position. However, we call attention to the case of Thompson v. Thompson, 141 S. C. 56, 139 S. E. 182. The other questions we shall consider together. We are unable to agree with appellant in the position that the trial judge erred in refusin......
-
Benya v. Gamble, No. 0256
...a finding either way might reasonably be made. 37 C.J.S. Frauds, Statute of § 291 at 833 (1943); see Thompson v. Thompson, 141 S.C. 56, 139 S.E. 182 Although there is evidence in the record to support the conclusion that no enforceable contract exists between the parties, Page 61 there is a......
-
Holder v. Camp, No. 14287.
...L. R. R. Co., 86 S.C. 514, 68 S.E.: 770; Halford v. Southern Ry. Company, 112 S.C. 266, 99 S.E. 839; Thompson v. Thompson, 141 S.C. 56, 139 S.E. 182. By exceptions 2, 3, 5, and 6, appellant assigns error in the refusal of the trial judge to grant its motions for a nonsuit and for a directed......
-
John T. Stanley Co. Inc v. Kaufman, No. 13701.
...unnecessary to cite authority in support of this position. However, we call attention to the case of Thompson v. Thompson, 141 S. C. 56, 139 S. E. 182. The other questions we shall consider together. We are unable to agree with appellant in the position that the trial judge erred in refusin......