Williams v. Johnson, No. 18237
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | LEWIS; TAYLOR |
| Citation | 137 S.E.2d 410,244 S.C. 406 |
| Parties | Jeanette P. WILLIAMS, Respondent, v. John S. JOHNSON, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 18237 |
| Decision Date | 06 July 1964 |
Page 410
v.
John S. JOHNSON, Appellant.
[244 S.C. 407] Tompkins, McMaster & Thomas, Columbia, for appellant.
Law, Kirkland & Aaron, Columbia, for respondent.
[244 S.C. 408] LEWIS, Justice.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages sustained by her in an automobile
Page 411
collision which, the complaint alleged, occurred when the defendant negligently, recklessly, and wilfully drove his automobile into the vehicle driven by the plaintiff. The answer of the defendant, in addition to a general denial, interposed, as a second defense, the contributory negligence and wilfulness of the plaintiff and, as a third defense, an accord and satisfaction between the parties, as a bar to recovery by the plaintiff. Upon the service of the answer, the plaintiff moved to strike therefrom the third defense. Thereafter, the defendant moved to be allowed to amend his answer by alleging that the plaintiff had been previously involved in numerous automobile accidents and was an habitually reckless driver. The above motions were heard together and an order was subsequently issued by the lower court (1) striking the third defense and (2) refusing to allow the defendant to amend his answer in the foregoing particulars. This appeal is by the defendant from the above mentioned order.The defenant contends, first, that the lower court erred in striking the third defense from his answer. This defense was as follows:
'5. Further answering said complaint, and as a further defense thereto, the defendant alleges that on the 11th day of February, 1963, the plaintiff herein, for the valid consideration of Six Hundred Fifty ($650.00) Dollars, executed and delivered to the defendant or for his benefit, a full release wherein she did release and forever discharge the defendant and all others privy to him from all claims and demands[244 S.C. 409] for injuries and damages sustained on or about May 24, 1962, Columbia, South Carolina, and that on account of the execution of the said release and the forwarding and delivering to the plaintiff of the payment in connection therewith, there has been a complete accord and satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim, and plaintiff is barred and estopped from maintaining this action or recovering any sums whatsoever on account of the injuries and damages alleged in the Complaint.'
The motion to strike the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sturcken v. Richland Oil Co., 18553
...of a duty and was properly confined by the trial judge solely to the issue of willfulness and punitive damages. See: Williams v. Johnson, 244 S.C. 406, 137 S.E.2d 410, and cases cited therein. While the complaint alleged recklessness, willfulness and wantonness on the part of defendant's dr......
-
Insurance Co. of North America v. Hyatt, No. 0791
...an entire defense on the grounds that it was irrelevant or immaterial was the Page 535 equivalent of a demurrer. Williams v. Johnson, 244 S.C. 406, 137 S.E.2d 410 (1964). Consequently, for purposes of ruling on such a motion, the well pleaded fact allegations of the answer were taken as tru......
-
Wilson v. Builders Transport, Inc., No. 2796.
...Inc., 231 S.C. 1, 97 S.E.2d 199 (1957). We therefore reverse the striking of the accord and satisfaction defense. Williams v. Johnson, 244 S.C. 406, 137 S.E.2d 410 V. The decision of the trial court striking Builders's defenses of sole negligence, comparative negligence, assumption of the r......
-
Fanning v. Hicks, No. 22251
...to settle a dispute (the accord), and the payment of the consideration expressed in the accord (the satisfaction). Williams v. Johnson, 244 S.C. 406, 137 S.E.2d 410 (1964). There can be no accord without a meeting of the minds. Redmond v. Strange, 203 S.C. 35, 26 S.E.2d 16 The record is voi......
-
Sturcken v. Richland Oil Co., 18553
...of a duty and was properly confined by the trial judge solely to the issue of willfulness and punitive damages. See: Williams v. Johnson, 244 S.C. 406, 137 S.E.2d 410, and cases cited therein. While the complaint alleged recklessness, willfulness and wantonness on the part of defendant's dr......
-
Insurance Co. of North America v. Hyatt, No. 0791
...an entire defense on the grounds that it was irrelevant or immaterial was the Page 535 equivalent of a demurrer. Williams v. Johnson, 244 S.C. 406, 137 S.E.2d 410 (1964). Consequently, for purposes of ruling on such a motion, the well pleaded fact allegations of the answer were taken as tru......
-
Wilson v. Builders Transport, Inc., No. 2796.
...Inc., 231 S.C. 1, 97 S.E.2d 199 (1957). We therefore reverse the striking of the accord and satisfaction defense. Williams v. Johnson, 244 S.C. 406, 137 S.E.2d 410 V. The decision of the trial court striking Builders's defenses of sole negligence, comparative negligence, assumption of the r......
-
Fanning v. Hicks, No. 22251
...to settle a dispute (the accord), and the payment of the consideration expressed in the accord (the satisfaction). Williams v. Johnson, 244 S.C. 406, 137 S.E.2d 410 (1964). There can be no accord without a meeting of the minds. Redmond v. Strange, 203 S.C. 35, 26 S.E.2d 16 The record is voi......