Westbrook v. Jefferies, No. 13882.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: STABLER, Justice
• Citation: 175 S.E. 433
• Parties: WESTBROOK. v. JEFFERIES.
• Decision Date: 06 July 1934
• Docket Number: No. 13882.

175 S.E. 433

WESTBROOK.
v.
JEFFERIES.

No. 13882.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 6, 1934.

[175 S.E. 434]

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.

STABLER, Justice.

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 beard 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,...