Winthrop v. Allen

• Decision Date: 01 August 1921
• Docket Number: 10698.
• Parties: WINTHROP v. ALLEN.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

108 S.E. 153

116 S.C. 388

WINTHROP v. ALLEN.

No. 10698.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

August 1, 1921

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Hampton County; I. W Bowman, Judge.

Action by Frederick Winthrop against Paul N. Allen, in which defendant filed a counterclaim. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Hugh O Hanna and Geo. Warren, both of Hampton, for appellant.

J. W Manuel, of Hampton, for respondent.

GARY C.J.

The following statement appears in the record:

"This case was brought by the plaintiff to recover rent alleged to be due by the defendant to him, for certain real estate for the years 1913 and 1914. The defendant answered by general denial, and as a counterclaim alleged that during the years 1912, 1913, and 1914 the plaintiff willfully and negligently committed certain acts, resulting in damage to the defendant, and asked for a judgment of $25,000 by way of a counterclaim. At the close of the defendant's testimony, plaintiff made a motion for a directed verdict against the defendant, for the sum of $555.05; and the plaintiff also made a motion for a directed verdict, as to the defendant's claim for punitive damages, on the ground, to wit: that punitive damages cannot be awarded for the breach of a contract, unless fraud be both alleged and proved, and that there was no allegation of fraud in the counterclaim filed in this case. After hearing argument by counsel, the court ruled as follows: 'I refuse the motion for the direction of a verdict, in favor of the plaintiff for so many dollars. The question of punitive damages is eliminated. I am going to cut that out.' "

The charge of the presiding judge sufficiently states the case and pleadings.

Turning to the charge we find the following:

"The plaintiff alleges that for two years he rented to Mr. Paul Allen, the defendant, certain lands, and that there is a balance due him for rent of $555.05, which is still unpaid, and he asks for a judgment at your hands for that amount, $555.05.

Mr. Allen, the defendant, comes in with his answer, and for a first defense he denies each and every allegation in the complaint of the plaintiff. He alleges that during the years 1912, 1913, and 1914, the plaintiff, through his agents, servants, and employees, acting under the express direction and within the scope of their employment, willfully, wantonly, carelessly, negligently, and with a total disregard to the rights of this defendant, broke his express agreement and contract with this defendant, to the effect that the labor then residing on certain lands in Hampton county, S. C., under the control of the plaintiff, and on the lands of the defendant, would not be disturbed by the plaintiff, but would be allowed to work the lands which Robert Winthrop had rented to the defendant, such contract and agreement being broken by the said plaintiff by having the said labor intimidated and coerced against working for the said defendant, and by having said laborers moved away and taken out of the crops of the defendant, then being raised by the said defendant, during the harvesting seasons of 1913 and 1914; that the plaintiff had expressly agreed to allow the defendant the privilege of employing said laborers, about 25 or 30 in number, during the year 1913, and had ratified this express agreement on several occasions.

That the defendant during the year 1913 planted said lands, putting down large quantities of fertilizers on the said lands, amounting to about $450, and planting seeds costing about $100, at a cost to the defendant for labor and plows for the planting and cultivation, of about $800 or more; that at harvest time and at the time that cotton was to be picked, the plaintiff, notwithstanding his agreement not to do so, deliberately, and with the intention of doing injury to the defendant, willfully, and negligently moved about 20 negro laborers away, took a number from the fields of the defendant, and began working them in the fields of the plaintiff, thereby depriving defendant of the only possible means of harvesting his crop."

The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $555.05, and the defendant appealed.

The vital question in the case is raised by the following exception:

"His honor erred, it is respectfully submitted, in holding that the law in this case does not allow punitive damages, and in refusing to submit the question of punitive damages to the jury; the error being that the counterclaim of defendant was based on an action ex delicto arising out of the contract, and in such an action the law does allow punitive damages, and the same should have been submitted to the jury."

The first question we will consider is whether the allegations of the counterclaim were sufficient to entitle the defendant to punitive damages on the ground of fraud. The allegations of the counterclaim which we have italicized show that the plaintiff, not only committed a breach of the contract, by willfully invading the rights of the defendant, but likewise removed about 20 negro laborers from the fields of the defendant, for the purpose of financial benefit to himself. In 12 R. C. L. 229, we find the following, under the definition of fraud:

"Fraud assumes so many different hues and forms that courts are compelled to content themselves with comparatively few general rules for its discovery and defeat, and allow the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case to bear heavily on the conscience and judgment of the court or jury, in determining its presence or absence. While it has often been said that fraud cannot be precisely defined, the books contain many definitions, such as the unlawful appropriation of another's property by design."

See, also, Welborn v. Dixon, 70 S.C. 108, 49 S.E. 232, 3 Ann. Cas. 407. These authorities render unnecessary the citation of others, in order to show error on the part of his honor the presiding judge.

The next question that will be considered is whether the allegations of the counterclaim that the plaintiff willfully and wantonly invaded the rights of the defendant entitled him to punitive damages. The following definition of a tort is quoted with approval in Welborn v. Dixon, 70 S.C. 108, 49 S.E. 232, 3 Ann. Cas. 407:

"The word 'tort' means nearly the same thing as * * * civil wrong. It denotes an injury inflicted otherwise than by mere breach of contract; or, to be more nicely accurate, a tort is one's disturbance of another in rights which the law has created, either in the absence of contract or in consequence of a relation which a contract had established between the parties."

It is true, the answer alleges that the plaintiff willfully wantonly, carelessly, negligently, and with a total disregard of the rights of the defendant, broke his express agreement and contract with the defendant in the manner therein stated; but it also alleges a cause of action for damages arising ex delicto; the allegations as to the contract being merely preliminary to the action based on tort. Pickens v. Railway, 54 S.C. 498, 32 S.E. 567; Hellams v. Tel. Co., 70 S.C. 83, ...