The case involved an employee of Anheuser-Busch who was injured in a car accident in 1939 while working in South Carolina and sought workers' compensation benefits. The Industrial Commission initially ruled it lacked jurisdiction because the employer had fewer than fifteen employees in the state and had not filed a formal written election to be covered under the Act, but the Court of Common Pleas reversed this decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the employer's procurement and filing of a workers' compensation insurance policy with the Commission constituted substantial compliance with the election requirements, evidencing its intent to be subject to the Act. The court reasoned that this action, combined with the presumption that the employer had notified the employee, satisfied the statutory provisions for voluntary inclusion, granting the Commission jurisdiction over the claim.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved the conviction of defendant Heyward for the murder of a rural policeman who was shot at the front door of his home while seeking information about arresting the defendant's brother. The defendant claimed self-defense and defense of his home, asserting that the officer unlawfully entered with a pistol drawn, but the state presented evidence that the officer merely knocked without entering or brandishing a weapon. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that conflicting evidence on whether there was an unlawful invasion required jury determination of malice and justification, that the trial judge properly instructed on relevant issues, and that the evidence supported submitting the case to the jury without abuse of discretion in denying a new trial.

criminal law

This case involved a dispute over a life insurance policy issued by Durham Life Insurance Company on the life of James M. DuBose, with Nollie H. DuBose as beneficiary; the policy paid $500 for natural death or $1,000 for accidental death but limited liability to premiums paid if death resulted from suicide in the first two years. The insured died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in October 1939, and the beneficiary sued for the double indemnity amount, alleging accidental death, while the insurer claimed suicide and offered only the premiums. At trial, the jury found in favor of the insurer on the issue of suicide. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial judge properly charged the jury on the burden of proof for suicide, that the evidence was sufficient to submit the question to the jury, and that any failure to instruct on the equipoise doctrine was harmless given the verdict and the parties' handling of the issue.

business & regulatory

In this wrongful death action, the plaintiff sought actual and punitive damages after her intestate, who had crashed his car onto railroad tracks and was weakened by injuries and blood loss, was struck and killed by a passing passenger train. The intestate had signaled an earlier freight train to stop; its crew removed the car but allegedly directed the injured man to cross the tracks to seek help despite knowing another train was due soon, without warning signals or adequate lighting. The jury awarded $3,500 in actual damages, and the trial court denied motions for nonsuit, directed verdict, and new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence permitted a reasonable inference the decedent was helpless on the tracks when hit, making questions of the railroad's negligence (excessive speed, failure to signal or maintain a lookout) and the decedent's contributory negligence issues properly submitted to the jury rather than matters of speculation.

torts & liability

This case involved the South Carolina Public Service Authority's condemnation of a one-half interest in Hanover plantation, after it had purchased the other half, with a dispute over the compensation due to the remaining owners. A jury in the Court of Common Pleas awarded the owners $19,250, and the trial judge denied the Authority's motion for a new trial or new trial nisi. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the verdict fell within the range of conflicting valuation testimony presented by witnesses and was not so excessive as to indicate caprice, passion, or prejudice; the trial judge therefore acted within his discretion in upholding it. The Court also rejected challenges to the admission of a witness's valuation testimony and to the trial judge's instructions urging the jury to reach a verdict, finding no error or coercion. Exceptions regarding other issues were abandoned.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a claim for $540 under the double indemnity clause of a life insurance policy on the plaintiff's mother, who was accidentally killed the day after the insurer's agent allegedly attempted to deliver the policy. The plaintiff asserted constructive delivery while the insured was in good health and waiver of the initial premium payment, while the defendant maintained that it had declined the application due to medical information and never issued the policy. After a jury verdict for the plaintiff, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial judge erred in submitting the waiver issue to the jury because the agent's alleged promise to pay the premium occurred before any policy existed and thus could not waive a condition precedent. The court also found prejudicial error in plaintiff's counsel's repeated improper argument about an alleged offer to influence a witness, which the trial judge had instructed the jury to disregard.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Burton v. McNeill, the plaintiff sued a private citizen for damages after being taken into custody and turned over to police upon being discovered inside the defendant's vacant house, which had previously been broken into and damaged. The trial court denied a directed verdict for the defendant and entered judgment for the plaintiff following a jury verdict, but the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed. The court held that the defendant was justified in making a citizen's arrest under the 1932 Code because he had received certain information that a felony had been committed and the circumstances (including prior break-ins and a fresh nuisance inside) provided reasonable grounds for a cautious person to believe the plaintiff intended to commit a crime. The opinion emphasized that the statutory standard for citizen's arrest requires only trustworthy information and supporting facts, not proof that a felony actually occurred or that the suspects were guilty.

criminal lawtorts & liabilityproperty

This case involved two consolidated actions by the plaintiff against the North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance Company for actual and punitive damages arising from the company's alleged refusal to provide a claim form for one week of sickness benefits under two insurance policies issued in 1918. The plaintiff asserted that the refusal was part of a fraudulent scheme to breach the contracts, while the defendant maintained that the plaintiff was not confined to bed as required by the policies and that all necessary forms had been provided. The trial court awarded $3 in actual damages and $125 in punitive damages, finding sufficient evidence of fraud to submit the punitive claim to the jury. On appeal, the court affirmed the actual damages award but reversed the punitive damages, holding that while there was evidence of a wrongful breach, there was no evidence of a fraudulent breach accompanied by a fraudulent act, consistent with the precedent in Shearer v. Pioneer Life Insurance Co.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved an employee who sued his textile manufacturing employer for $65.08 in actual damages and $1,000 in punitive damages, alleging that after a 1937 state law (Act No. 326) took effect requiring time-and-a-half pay for Sunday work, the company fraudulently reduced his hourly rate from 34¢ to 32¢ to avoid paying the required premium, resulting in only a 10¢ weekly increase instead of the mandated amount for 59 weeks. The trial court denied the employer's motions for nonsuit and directed verdict, and a jury awarded the plaintiff $54.28 in actual damages and $250 in punitive damages. On appeal, the Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed the punitive damages award, finding no evidence of a fraudulent act accompanying the breach of the week-to-week employment contract, and also reversed the actual damages award on the ground that the plaintiff's continued employment and acceptance of the adjusted wages for an extended period without objection constituted implied consent and estoppel. The court remanded the case for a new trial limited to actual damages.

labor & employment

This case involved claims for workers' compensation benefits under the South Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act by the dependents of two workers who died in a 1939 accident while painting a water tank at Pacific Mills. The defendants argued that the workers were employed by an independent contractor and not engaged in work that was part of the mill's trade, business, or occupation under Section 19 of the Act. The Industrial Commission awarded compensation, which was affirmed by the Court of Common Pleas, and the Supreme Court upheld the decision. The court reasoned that the tank was integral to the mill's operations, particularly for fire protection essential to its cotton manufacturing business, that the mill supplied materials and retained inspection rights, and that the work therefore fell within the scope of the statute making the mill liable as if it had directly employed the workers. The ruling followed and distinguished facts from the precedent in Marchbanks v. Duke Power Company.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In this case, a radio manufacturer sued its South Carolina distributor for payment on an open account for goods sold, while the distributor counterclaimed for breach of an alleged exclusive distributorship agreement, claiming the manufacturer directly advertised and sold similar or identical products in the state at reduced prices. The jury returned verdicts for both parties, leading to a net judgment for the distributor after the trial judge adjusted the amounts via a new trial nisi order. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment for the distributor, ruling that the evidence of sales by third parties through catalogs and direct resale did not match the breaches pleaded in the counterclaim, and that an amendment to conform the pleadings to that proof would have substantially changed the claim and prejudiced the manufacturer. The court therefore held that a nonsuit should have been granted on the counterclaim, while the verdict for the manufacturer on the account stood.

business & regulatory

The case involved Ernest Phillips, who pleaded guilty to willfully possessing and storing illegal stamped whiskey in his filling station without a liquor license, in violation of Section 15 of a 1939 South Carolina act; he received a two-year prison sentence with eight months to serve and the rest suspended. The court addressed whether the sentence conformed to the statute, whether it must be imposed in the alternative of fine or imprisonment (allowing the defendant to choose), and whether the statute was unconstitutional for lacking a maximum fine limit. The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the judgment, holding that precedent established the trial court's discretion to select either fine or imprisonment as the punishment, and the legislature had not overridden those rulings when amending the statute. The court declined to reach the constitutionality question because only a prison sentence was imposed, and it found the sentence was not excessive.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

In Gowan v. Greenville County, the appellant challenged a decree issued by the circuit court. The South Carolina Supreme Court determined that the appellant's exceptions lacked merit and adopted the circuit court's order as the opinion of the court, thereby affirming the lower court's decision. The ruling was issued with the concurrence of the Chief Justice, two Associate Justices, and one Acting Associate Justice, while another Acting Associate Justice concurred only in the result.

procedure

This case involved a dispute over a testamentary trust established in 1922, under which defendant Newton T. Clark held four shares of bank stock for the benefit of plaintiff Nannie Clark Neel during her life, with remainder to her children. After the trustee transferred the stock to the beneficiaries' mother in 1932 to avoid potential shareholders' liability amid the bank's financial troubles, the plaintiff sued in 1939 for conversion, alleging the transfer was unauthorized and that the trustee concealed the sale. The trial court denied a directed verdict, and the jury awarded actual and punitive damages; on appeal, the court affirmed the actual damages award but reversed the punitive damages. The core reasoning was that the trustee's transfer and retention of the stock constituted an unauthorized exercise of ownership rights over trust property, creating liability for conversion, while objections to the plaintiff's legal capacity to sue had been waived by failure to raise them properly in the pleadings.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, the plaintiff bank sued the defendant on a collateral promissory note secured by shares of stock, alleging default and seeking payment of the balance due. The defendant admitted executing the note but raised defenses and counterclaims asserting that the bank's sale of the pledged stock to itself for $100 and immediate resale to its president for $2,000 was fraudulent and part of a conspiracy to enable control of a corporate election, seeking credits, damages for conversion, and other relief. The trial court overruled the bank's demurrer to these pleadings, and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the counterclaims arose out of the same contract or transaction as the complaint and were therefore properly pleadable under the code, consistent with prior precedent, and that joinder of other alleged conspirators was not required since liability is joint and several.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved the interpretation of a 1917 deed conveying real property to twin siblings Nathan A. Sims and Nancy Sims Clayton for their natural lives, with remainders to the heirs of their bodies, along with a request for partition in kind of the jointly owned land. The lower court had ruled that the grantees received fee conditional estates, that Nathan could alienate his share due to the birth of issue, and that partition should proceed. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the grantor used the words "heirs of the body" in their strict legal sense rather than as a synonym for "children." The court reasoned that the deed's preamble referred only to prior conveyances and did not reveal an intent to depart from the legal meaning of the granting and habendum clauses, and that any contrary intention must appear within the four corners of the instrument itself.

property

This case involves a property boundary dispute in which plaintiff Overton sought to enjoin defendants Snowden and Chadwick from trespassing on 153 acres he claimed to own, while Snowden asserted ownership of an overlapping 84-acre tract. After a referee recommended finding for Snowden and a surveyor was appointed to mark the dividing line but relied on plats not introduced into evidence, Judge Dennis ordered the matter recommitted for a full new trial before the referee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the surveyor could consider only properly admitted evidence and that ordering a new trial did not improperly reverse a prior judge but instead allowed the parties to present additional evidence under correct procedures.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute over a loan made to a local chapter of Royal Arch Masons in South Carolina, raising questions about corporate status and member liability. The two main issues on appeal were whether the 1914 state act incorporating the Grand Royal Arch Chapter also incorporated its existing constituent chapters, and whether individual members who did not authorize or ratify the loan could be held personally responsible for its repayment. The court reviewed the record and briefs and concluded that the circuit court's decree had correctly resolved both questions. It therefore affirmed the lower court's decision without further elaboration, directing that the circuit decree be reported.

business & regulatory

This case involved a pedestrian injured on Meeting Street in Charleston when struck first by a truck owned by Hyman Rephan (doing business as Rephan’s Sanitary Dairy) and then by a second truck owned by Palmetto Flower Corporation, leading to claims of joint negligence, speeding, failure to keep a lookout, and related violations against both owners. The jury awarded the plaintiff $10,000 against Rephan (later reduced by $2,000) and $5,000 against the other defendant, which was paid. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the judgment against Rephan, ruling that the evidence of the driver's negligence created a jury question and that the defendant's sworn admission in the original answer that the driver was acting as its agent and servant precluded a directed verdict on scope of employment; other evidentiary objections were also rejected.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a claim for total and permanent disability benefits under two insurance certificates issued by Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World to the appellant. The appellant alleged he became disabled by angina pectoris from his work in farming, cotton buying, fertilizers, and trucking, but the trial court directed a verdict for the insurer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the policy definition of total disability is not met when the insured can perform work in another occupation for which he was trained and on which he can depend for a living, as shown by the appellant's regular employment as a bricklayer since March 1939.

business & regulatory