Williams v. Tolbert

• Decision Date: 04 March 1907
• Citation: 56 S.E. 908,76 S.C. 211
• Parties: WILLIAMS. v. TOLBERT et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

76 S.C. 211

56 S.E. 908

WILLIAMS.

v.TOLBERT et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 4, 1907.

1. Principal and Agent—Acts op Agent-Liability of Principal—Chattel Mortgages—Seizure of Mortgaged Property— Acts of Mortgagee's Agent.

Where a chattel mortgage after condition broken authorizes seizure of the personal property, and the mortgagee directs an agent to make such seizure, the mortgagee is liable for any misconduct of the agent, though he acted contrary to orders.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent Dig. vol. 40, Principal and Agent §§ 599-002.]

2. New Trial—Excessive Verdict.

The court is not required to grant a new trial, though he might have been better satisfied with a smaller verdict.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 37, New Trial, §§ 150-156.]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Abbeville County; Prince, Judge.

Action by R. W. Williams against R. R. Tolbert and Thomas W. Miller. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Defendants appeal on the following exceptions:

"(1) Because his honor erred in charging the jury in the following words: 'I charge you this, If you find the allegations of Mr. Tolbert's answer are true, that he did warn his codefendant who he appointed agent to seize the mule, if he did tell him not to take the mule unless he could get peaceable possession, and not use any force in acquiring possession, that will not relieve Mr. Tolbert' —the errors in said charge being as follows:

(a) That the said charge assumes that the defendant Tolbert did appoint the defendant Miller as agent to seize the mule, when the only evidence on the point shows that Tolbert appointed Miller as agent to go and ask the plaintiff for the mule, and if he refused to deliver possession, then to go to the magistrate and take out claim and delivery papers.

(b) In that said charge holds the defendant Tolbert responsible in punitive damages for acts of Mr. Miller, not only unauthorized, but expressly forbidden by him. (c) In that the charge is not responsive to any evidence afforded in the case.

"(2) Because his honor erred In charging the jury as follows: 'So in this case If you should find that the defendant Miller consciously and willfully, recklessly invaded the rights of the plaintiff under the law as I have given it to you, and under the facts as you find them, then both he. and his principal are responsible; provided that at that time Miller was acting within the scope of his agency to seize the mule under that mortgage—the errors in said charge being that there Is no evidence in the case to show that Mr. Miller is an agent of Tolbert to seize the mule, and that the evidence showed that in seizing the mule Miller acted directly contrary to the instructions of Tolbert ''(3) Because his honor erred in charging the jury as follows: '(5) That if possession of the property was denied to the defendant Miller as agent of Tolbert, and if, instead of obtaining that possession peaceably and lawfully, he resorted to a breach of peace and violation of criminal law, and went with a high hand and took the property, then he Mas violating the law of the land, and he is responsible, if nothing else is shown for that violation, and the principal is equally liable. I charge you that, provided the agent was acting within the scope of his agency to seize the property—the errors in said charge being as follows: (a) In that the said charge makes the defendant Tolbert liable for the unauthorized and forbidden act of defendant Miller, ft)) In that the evidence fails to show any expressed or implied authority conferred by Tolbert on Miller to do an unlawful act. (c) In that the evidence shows that the defendant Tolbert expressly forbade the defendant Miller to do any unlawful act to obtain possession of the property, (d) In that the said charge makes both defendants liable in punitive damages, no matter how carefully and conscientiously the defendant Miller acted.

"(4) Because his honor erred in charging the jury as follows: '(6) A principal is liable to third parties for whatever the agent does or says, whatever contracts, representations, or admissions he makes, whatever negligence he is guilty of, and whatever wrong he commits; and provided a liability would attach to the principal if he was in the place of the agent—the errors in the said case being as follows: (a) That the said charge allows the jury to find without evidence that the defendant Miller was the agent of the defendant Tolbert in doing the acts complained of. (h) That the evidence shows that the defendant Miller was forbidden by Tolbert to do the acts complained of. (c) That the said charge holds both defendants responsible in punitive damages, no matter how carefully and conscientiously the defendant Miller acted, (d) In that the said charge allowed the jury to find a verdict for punitive damages against both defendants without evidence to support it.

"(5) Because his honor erred in charging the jury as follows: '(7) That if defendant Miller went to the premises of the plaintiff as the agent of the defendant Tolbert to foreclose the mortgage, and actually went in the pursuance of that agency and acting within its scope; then, If he committed any breach of peace or other violation of the criminal law in obtaining possession of the property which he was sent there to seize, then both he and Tolbert, his principal, would be liable"—the errors in said charge being as follows: (a) That it allowed the jury to find without evidence that the defendant Miller had unlimited authority from the defendant Tolbert to seize the property at all events, (b) In that the evidence showed that the defendant Mil ler had no authority from Tolbert to take the property into his possession against the consent of the plaintiff (c) In that the said charge...