Wright v. Harris, No. 17065
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | TAYLOR; BAKER |
| Citation | 89 S.E.2d 97,228 S.C. 144 |
| Parties | W. C. WRIGHT, Respondent, v. Marion HARRIS, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 17065 |
| Decision Date | 14 September 1955 |
Page 97
v.
Marion HARRIS, Appellant.
[228 S.C. 145] Julien D. Wyatt, Felix L. Finley, Jr., Pickens, for appellant.
[228 S.C. 146] Harris & Harris, Anderson, W. G. Acker, Pickens, for respondent.
TAYLOR, Justice.
This appeal arises out of an action brought in the Court of Common Pleas for Pickens County for actual and punitive damages alleged to have arisen out of an exchange and sale of automobiles.
The matter came on to be heard before the Honorable J. B. Pruitt at the October, 1953, Term. Timely motions were made for nonsuit and directed verdict which were refused and the case submitted to the jury, resulting in a verdict for respondent. Motion was duly made for judgment non obstante verdicto and refused. Prior to time of trial, appellant served notice of motion requiring the Complaint to be made more definite by separately stating and numbering the causes of action appearing therein and requiring respondent to elect upon which he would proceed. This motion was heard upon the call of the case by the presiding Judge in his Chambers and no transcript was kept thereof; however, the following transpired during the trial:
[228 S.C. 147] 'Mr. Finley: We have a motion, Your Honor.
'The Court: Mr. Foreman and Gentlemen, step in your room a minute, please.
'Jury Out: 2:55 P.M.
'Mr. Finley: May it please the Court, we would like to make a motion
Page 98
at this time for a nonsuit and would like to make that motion in the light of the ruling of the Court and the statement of Counsel for the Plaintiff concerning his cause of action. I am, I think, correct in stating that he, Mr. Harris' position is that the cause of action is on fraud and deceit?'The Court: Are you asking me or Mr. Harris that?
'Mr. Finley: Yes, sir. We have no record of that conversation this morning of our position. I would like the record to show it.
'The Court: Ask the attorney to state his position in the record then.
'The Court: Mr. Harris, will you reiterate your statement of this morning as to your cause of action in view of the fact we don't have a record of it.
'(B) Position of Respondent's Counsel as to Cause of Action.
'Mr. Leon Harris, attorney for respondent: I stated this morning that our case is bottomed on the fraud and deceit with reference to the issuance of the policy and the whole matter, * * *'
It is, therefore, clear that respondent elected to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cole v. Raut, No. 3995.
...the jury on the elements to consider in awarding damages. In so holding, the Ellison court distinguished two cases, Wright v. Harris, 228 S.C. 144, 89 S.E.2d 97 (1955) and Citizens Bank of Darlington v. McDonald, 202 S.C. 244, 24 S.E.2d 369 In Wright, the court stated: [I]t is reversible er......
-
State v. Peer, No. 2444
...give instructions which are calculated to confuse or mislead the jury. Leonard, 292 S.C. 133, 355 S.E.2d 270; see also Wright v. Harris, 228 S.C. 144, 89 S.E.2d 97 (1955) (the giving of conflicting and irrelevant instructions is reversible error). This is so because the purpose of jury inst......
-
Green v. Bolen, No. 17683
...the pleadings or supported by the evidence, or which deviates therefrom in any material respect. * * *' In the case of Wright v. Harris, 228 S.C. 144, 89 S.E.2d 97, 98, this Court 'The foregoing is in line with other decisions of this Court to the effect that it is reversible error to charg......
-
Ellison v. Simmons, No. 17789
...169 S.C. 1, 167 S.E. 839; Oglesby v. Rhea, 124 S.C. 57, 117 S.E. 303. The appellant calls to our attention the case of Wright v. Harris, 228 S.C. 144, 89 S.E.2d 97, where this Court said that it is reversible error to charge a correct principle of law as governing a case where such principl......
-
Cole v. Raut, No. 3995.
...the jury on the elements to consider in awarding damages. In so holding, the Ellison court distinguished two cases, Wright v. Harris, 228 S.C. 144, 89 S.E.2d 97 (1955) and Citizens Bank of Darlington v. McDonald, 202 S.C. 244, 24 S.E.2d 369 In Wright, the court stated: [I]t is reversible er......
-
State v. Peer, No. 2444
...give instructions which are calculated to confuse or mislead the jury. Leonard, 292 S.C. 133, 355 S.E.2d 270; see also Wright v. Harris, 228 S.C. 144, 89 S.E.2d 97 (1955) (the giving of conflicting and irrelevant instructions is reversible error). This is so because the purpose of jury inst......
-
Green v. Bolen, No. 17683
...the pleadings or supported by the evidence, or which deviates therefrom in any material respect. * * *' In the case of Wright v. Harris, 228 S.C. 144, 89 S.E.2d 97, 98, this Court 'The foregoing is in line with other decisions of this Court to the effect that it is reversible error to charg......
-
Ellison v. Simmons, No. 17789
...169 S.C. 1, 167 S.E. 839; Oglesby v. Rhea, 124 S.C. 57, 117 S.E. 303. The appellant calls to our attention the case of Wright v. Harris, 228 S.C. 144, 89 S.E.2d 97, where this Court said that it is reversible error to charge a correct principle of law as governing a case where such principl......