The case concerned a dispute over liability for a check issued by Pilot Life Insurance Company as a policy loan to Carl McDonald, which was endorsed and presented to Citizens Bank of Darlington by D. Carl Cook; after the payee's bank demanded a refund upon learning of an alleged forgery of McDonald's signature, the plaintiff bank sought repayment from McDonald, Cook, and the insurance company, along with subrogation rights. The trial court submitted to the jury only the question of whether McDonald's signature on the check was a forgery, received a 'no' verdict, and entered judgment for the bank with a lien on the policy. On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial judge gave erroneous and conflicting instructions on the burden of proving the genuineness of the signature, misstated the elements of estoppel, and improperly allowed the jury to consider an estoppel theory unsupported by evidence of reliance by the bank on any conduct by McDonald.
In this case, plaintiff J.P. Bell, a policeman, sued the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad for actual and punitive damages after being struck by a piece of planking dislodged from a railroad crossing by a passing freight train while he stood about twenty feet away observing the train. The jury awarded $500 in actual damages and $500 in punitive damages based on claims that the railroad negligently failed to maintain the crossing planking as required by state statutes and operated the train recklessly. On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the punitive damages award, holding that the evidence did not support a finding of willfulness or gross negligence sufficient for punitive damages. The court reasoned that the relevant statutes requiring railroads to maintain safe crossings applied only to protect those using or intending to use the crossing, not bystanders like the plaintiff, and that a statutory violation alone does not imply the willfulness needed for punitive damages. The case was remanded for a new trial unless the plaintiff remitted the $500 punitive damages award.
This case involved a workers' compensation claim by the siblings of James Clark, an employee of Campbell Tile Company who suffered a strain while lifting a heavy machine on June 13, 1941, became ill, and died on July 9, 1941, from myocarditis and toxemia linked to urine extravasation from a pre-existing urinary stricture. The Industrial Commission awarded benefits to the claimants after finding a causal connection between the work accident and death based on medical testimony, and the Circuit Court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the award, holding that the commission's factual findings are conclusive if supported by any competent evidence, such as Dr. Wyman's expert opinion linking the strain to the fatal condition, and that courts do not reweigh conflicting medical testimony or require claimants to rule out all alternative causes.
The plaintiffs, owners of businesses in Spartanburg selling beer and wine, sued the city and its officials seeking to enjoin enforcement of a municipal ordinance that prohibited such sales on Sundays from midnight Saturday to sunrise Monday. They argued the ordinance exceeded the city's police power, was arbitrary, and unconstitutionally discriminated against their lawful businesses. The city responded that the measure was needed to address documented problems of disorder, noise, fights, and other disturbances around beer parlors, especially involving soldiers from a nearby camp. The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the ordinance, holding that municipalities possess broad authority to regulate trades affecting public safety and order, that the rule was supported by evidence rather than adopted arbitrarily, and that any resulting economic harm to the plaintiffs did not invalidate the public-interest regulation. The court dissolved the temporary injunction, denied a permanent one, and dismissed the complaint.
This case, Davis v. Smith, raised issues identical to those presented in the simultaneously decided case of H. R. Arnold et al. v. City of Spartanburg et al. The court applied the disposition from that related case to resolve the matter here. It therefore dissolved the temporary injunction that had been granted, refused the request for a permanent injunction, and dismissed the complaint in full.
In State v. Belin, the defendant was charged with murdering his wife based on circumstantial evidence after her body was found in their home; he maintained an alibi that he was elsewhere at the time of the shooting and was convicted by a jury with a recommendation of mercy. On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the solicitor's cross-examination improperly and repeatedly expressed the opinion that the defendant was guilty after the defendant had denied it, which prejudiced the jury and denied the defendant a fair trial under the state constitution, even if unintentional. The court noted related issues such as the trial court's refusal to instruct on manslaughter but did not rule on them directly, emphasizing that the cumulative effect violated the defendant's rights.
