Woodworth v. Skeen, (No. 12782.)
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | COTHRAN |
| Citation | 150 S.E. 764 |
| Parties | WOODWORTH et al. v. SKEEN et al. |
| Docket Number | (No. 12782.) |
| Decision Date | 11 December 1929 |
150 S.E. 764
WOODWORTH et al.
v.
SKEEN et al.
(No. 12782.)
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Dec. 11, 1929.
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Cherokee County; E. C. Dennis, Judge.
[150 S.E. 765]Action by Amelia B. Woodworth and another, partners trading as Becker's Bakery, against T. H. Skeen and one Chrysler No. 70 automobile. From an order denying a motion to vacate an attachment, defendants appeal. Reversed.
Butler & Hall, of Gaffney, and I. A. Phifer, of Spartanburg, for appellants.
Fort & Jefferies, of Gaffney, for respondents.
COTHRAN, J. This is an appeal from an order of his honor Judge Dennis refusing a motion by the defendant to vacate an attachment upon the ground that it was irregularly issued, in that the affidavit does not comply with the statute, in that it does not thereby appear that a cause of action exists against the defendant,
The complaint is verified and is made a part of the affidavit for attachment by reference; it may therefore be considered in determining whether a cause of action is stated.
The affirmation is that the defendant "negligently and carelessly and in violation of law, in the following particulars, to-wit, (a) By running at a dangerous speed in the circumstances, ran into the truck of the plaintiffs" and damaged it.
It may be questionable whether the affirmation would have been sufficient if the affidavit had stopped with the allegation that the defendant's car had been negligently run into the truck of the plaintiffs; without a statement of the facts from which this inference could legitimately be drawn, it may have been considered as a legal deduction of the deponent; but, when it is proposed to set out the facts, it should be done in a way that would induce such deduction.
All that is affirmed is that the car was being run in violation of law at a speed rendered dangerous by the circumstances, which are not detailed.
The motion should have been granted, and the order refusing it is reversed. See Edgefield v. Power Co., 104 S. C. 311, 88 S. E. 801; Scott v. R. Co., 67 S. C. 136, 45 S. E. 129; Bank of Saluda v. Feaster, 87 S. C. 97, 68 S. E. 1045; Williams v. Carlson, 118 S. C. 46, 110 S. E. 69; Jones v. Atlantic Coast Line Lumber Co., 92 S. C. 418, 75 S. E. 698; Ragin v. N. W. Ry. Co., 111 S. C. 394, 98 S. E. 286; Cudd v. Rogers, 111 S. C. 507, 98 S. E. 796; McGregor v. State Co., 114 S. C. 48, 103 S. E. 84; Rankin v. S. & K. R. Co., 58 S. C. 532, 36 S. E. 997; Donaldson v. Temple, 96 S. C. 240, 80...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. Perry, No. 7936
...360 at pages 363-364, 114 P. 671; In re Dargie's Estate, 33 Cal.App.2d 148, 91 P.2d 126 at page 131; Woodworth v. Skeen, 153 S.C. 362, 150 S.E. 764. Being incorporated by reference in the affidavit, if the complaint states a cause of action on implied contract, it speaks for itself. If it d......
-
Johnson v. Hall, No. 15852.
...operation of said automobile, but contains only conclusions of the plaintiff." The cited authority of Woodworth v. Skeen, 153 S.C. 362, 150 S.E. 764, was relied upon. Appeal upon an appropriate exception brings up for review the latter order. The decision on circuit was made without apparen......
-
Cockrell v. Sedan, No. 16121.
...motion should be granted as the allegations of the affidavit are practically the same as disapproved in Wood-worth v. Skeen, 153 S.C. 362, 150 S.E. 764. Since the Woodworth decision our Supreme Court has again passed on a similar matter in Johnson v. Hall et al, 208 S.C. 534, 38 S.E.2d 708,......
-
Stilley v. Dawsey, (No. 12781.)
...and 84/100 ($1709.84) Dollars of this plaintiff's money or goods, in breach of his employment and in breach of the terms of said bond."[150 S.E. 764] The defendants, answering, pleaded a number of defenses. At the proper time during the trial of the case, the defendants moved for a directed......
-
Wallace v. Perry, No. 7936
...360 at pages 363-364, 114 P. 671; In re Dargie's Estate, 33 Cal.App.2d 148, 91 P.2d 126 at page 131; Woodworth v. Skeen, 153 S.C. 362, 150 S.E. 764. Being incorporated by reference in the affidavit, if the complaint states a cause of action on implied contract, it speaks for itself. If it d......
-
Johnson v. Hall, No. 15852.
...operation of said automobile, but contains only conclusions of the plaintiff." The cited authority of Woodworth v. Skeen, 153 S.C. 362, 150 S.E. 764, was relied upon. Appeal upon an appropriate exception brings up for review the latter order. The decision on circuit was made without apparen......
-
Cockrell v. Sedan, No. 16121.
...motion should be granted as the allegations of the affidavit are practically the same as disapproved in Wood-worth v. Skeen, 153 S.C. 362, 150 S.E. 764. Since the Woodworth decision our Supreme Court has again passed on a similar matter in Johnson v. Hall et al, 208 S.C. 534, 38 S.E.2d 708,......
-
Stilley v. Dawsey, (No. 12781.)
...and 84/100 ($1709.84) Dollars of this plaintiff's money or goods, in breach of his employment and in breach of the terms of said bond."[150 S.E. 764] The defendants, answering, pleaded a number of defenses. At the proper time during the trial of the case, the defendants moved for a directed......