Westbrook v. Jefferies
| Decision Date | 06 July 1934 |
| Docket Number | 13882. |
| Parties | WESTBROOK v. JEFFERIES. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Cherokee County; T. S Sease, Judge.
Action by Raymond Westbrook, by H. F. Westbrook, guardian, against George D. Jefferies. From a judgment of the circuit court sustaining a judgment of a magistrate in favor of plaintiff defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Hall Vassy & Hall, of Gaffney, for appellant.
Johnston & Godshall, of Gaffney, for respondent.
This action was commenced in the court of a magistrate in Cherokee county for damages, both actual and punitive, in the sum of $99. It was alleged in paragraph 2 of the complaint:
"That on or about the 9th day of August, 1932, Raymond Westbrook, hereinafter called plaintiff, was going in an automobile on the Gaffney-Blacksburg Highway, in the direction of Blacksburg, in the County of Cherokee, and State aforesaid; that on said date as aforesaid, the defendant's agents and servants were driving two wagons of the defendant in the night time, without a lantern, and the plaintiff, not knowing of said wagons, ran into the said wagons, and plaintiff's car was damaged thereby, and said injury and damage to plaintiff's car was directly due to and proximately caused by the negligence and wilfulness of the defendant in the following particulars:
(a) In that the defendant failed and neglected to have a light on the wagons as required by the Statute law of the State.
(b) In that the defendant had two wagons running side by side, when the said wagons should have been running one behind the other.
(c) In that the defendant on numerous occasions before said injury and damage as aforesaid had permitted and caused to be driven the said wagons without having lights on the same in the night time."
On the call of the case for trial the defendant moved to strike from the complaint specification (c) above quoted, on the ground that it was irrelevant and stated no cause of action. The motion was refused, and the defendant then answered denying the allegations of the complaint. He also pleaded a counterclaim "for damages sustained to his mules and wagons through the negligence and wilfulness of the plaintiff in running into them at a high and dangerous rate of speed without having his car equipped with adequate lights or brakes," etc. During the trial testimony was offered by the plaintiff, and was admitted over defendant's objection, tending to establish the allegations contained in (c). The magistrate submitted the case to the jury without any instructions as to the law applicable to the issues, merely charging them as to what kind of verdict they might render. From judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the amount asked for, the defendant appealed to the circuit court, imputing error to the magistrate: (1) In refusing to strike from the complaint specification (c), and in admitting objectionable testimony in proof thereof; and (2) in failing to instruct the jury as to the law applicable to the issues made by the pleadings. Judge T. S. Sease, who heard the appeal, sustained the judgment "in every particular." He gave no reasons for his conclusions, but indicated in his order that they were reached after due deliberation. The defendant is now here on appeal, and raises by his exceptions substantially the same questions as those presented to the circuit court.
With regard to appeals from inferior courts to the circuit court, section 804 of the Code of 1932 provides: "Upon hearing the appeal, the appellate court shall give judgment according to the justice of the case, without regard to technical errors and defects which do not affect the merits." See the following cases in which this provision of law was considered and applied: Fraser v. Railway Company, 93 S.C. 272, 76 S.E. 609; Stanford v. Cudd, 93 S.C. 367, 76 S.E. 986, 987; Price v. Railway Company, 93 S.C. 576, 77 S.E. 703; Feinstein v. Politz, 103 S.C. 238, 87 S.E. 1005; Bagnal v. Express Company, 106 S.C. 395, 91 S.E. 334; Naufal v. Gergel, 136 S.C. 366, 134 S.E. 463.
In the Politz Case, it is stated that the circuit court, on such appeal, should consider all the evidence in the record, and try the case on the merits. In the Price Case, it was held that where it was not made to appear upon what ground the Circuit Court rendered its judgment, "we must assume that it was rested upon some sound and meritorious ground, and sustain it, if the record discloses any such ground." In the Cudd Case, the court said: "In obedience to the statute, the circuit court might have concluded that the magistrate erred in refusing some or all of the defendant's requests, or in admitting some or all of the testimony objected to by defendant, but the court might have thought, upon consideration of the case on the merits, that, notwithstanding such errors, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment; and as there was evidence which would have warranted such a conclusion, and as we cannot say that the judgment was affected or controlled by any error of law, it must be affirmed."
It is clear that the testimony sought to be excluded...
To continue reading
Request your trial