Richard Cannon Watts

The case National Loan & Exchange Bank v. Gustafson reached the South Carolina Supreme Court on appeal from a lower court decision. The court affirmed the judgment entered by Judge Dennis without elaborating on its own reasoning. Justice Blease concurred only in the result, while Justices Staber and Carter fully concurred in the affirmance.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case Piper v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co. concerned a dispute involving the casualty insurance company. In this dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Watts, with Justice Stabler concurring, stated that the judgment of the Circuit Court should be affirmed. The dissent relied entirely on the reasons previously assigned by Judge Shipp rather than providing independent analysis. This indicates the dissenters believed the lower court's ruling was correct and should stand as the decision of the appellate court.

torts & liability

The case Pickett v. Geer reached the state supreme court on appeal from a circuit court judgment. The court affirmed the lower court's decision in full, adopting the reasoning set out by Judge Mauldin without adding its own analysis. Chief Justice Watts delivered the opinion, and Justices Cothran, BeEase, StabeEr, and Carter joined in the unanimous result.

procedure

The case of Hughes v. Wilburn reached the South Carolina Supreme Court as an appeal from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court. Chief Justice Watts delivered the opinion of the Court, stating that the Circuit Court's judgment was affirmed for the reasons previously assigned by Judge Sease. Justices Cothran, Brease, and Stabrer concurred fully, while Justice Carter concurred only in the result.

procedure

The case involved the appellant, under bond for violating the prohibition law, who failed to appear for trial and was convicted in his absence of possessing whisky. He appealed on grounds including insufficient evidence of ownership or intoxication, failure to prove unlawful obtaining, and alleged errors in jury instructions regarding lawful versus unlawful possession. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient for the possession charge, the jury charge correctly stated the law against possessing intoxicating liquor regardless of how obtained, and the appellant's exceptions misunderstood the indictment's focus on possession rather than obtaining or ownership.

criminal law

The case concerned the conviction of the defendant in Horry County for violating the state prohibition law under two counts: possession and storing of alcoholic liquor. After a jury verdict of guilty on both counts and a one-year prison sentence, the defendant appealed on multiple grounds, including insufficient evidence, improper admission of testimony about liquor sales, errors in jury instructions, and defects in the indictment. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that witness testimony about purchases and the source of the liquor supported the storing charge, that evidence of sales and related acts was admissible to prove the charged offenses or show consciousness of guilt, that the trial judge's evidentiary and instructional rulings were correct, and that one valid count in the indictment rendered any flaw in the other harmless.

criminal law

The case involved a property owner suing road contractors for trespass, alleging that their agents entered her land without permission, damaged grass and trees, and dug a ditch that diverted water onto her premises while building a state highway. The contractors defended by claiming they acted under authorization from the South Carolina Highway Department and moved to add the Department as a party defendant, arguing that any liability belonged to the state agency. The trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed that ruling. The court reasoned that the Highway Department was neither a proper nor necessary party because the contractors had not entered the land innocently, as shown by correspondence, and cited prior cases supporting this outcome.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case was a wrongful death action brought by the administratrix of John M. Bell's estate against Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and two employees under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act for $95,000 in damages arising from Bell's fatal injury while working in interstate commerce in a railroad yard. After a jury awarded the plaintiff $5,000, the defendants appealed on the ground that no negligence had been shown. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, reasoning that state rules on sufficiency of evidence applied, there was competent testimony that the defendants violated their own safety rules and yard customs by failing to ring a bell or give warnings before moving equipment, and such evidence required submitting the negligence question to the jury rather than directing a verdict for the defendants.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case Nimmer v. Chewning came before the South Carolina Supreme Court as an appeal from a circuit court judgment. Chief Justice Watts delivered the opinion, stating that the court affirmed the circuit court's decision for the reasons given by Judge Bonham. The remaining justices all concurred, resulting in the lower court's ruling being upheld.

procedure

This case involved a dispute over $700 in real estate sales commissions claimed by plaintiff Fannie DuBose against defendants including W.W. Arthur, arising from the sale of property by Mrs. Nellie Frances Sullivan to W.A. Clarkson. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff with a jury verdict against Arthur. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial judge did not err in excluding testimony regarding how the witness connected Arthur to the property, as such evidence was not shown to be prejudicial and its admission or exclusion fell within the trial court's discretion on relevancy.

propertyprocedure

The case Bolt v. Life Casualty Ins. Co. reached the court as an appeal from a Circuit Court judgment involving a dispute with the insurance company. The Supreme Court reviewed the order issued by Judge Dennis and determined that it adequately addressed the issues presented. As a result, the court overruled all exceptions raised on appeal and affirmed the Circuit Court's judgment in full. Several justices concurred in the decision without separate writings.

business & regulatory

The case involved a tort action by the plaintiff against two defendants for alleged wrongs including false arrest, false imprisonment, and slander, filed under South Carolina's Jumbling Act that permits multiple related acts or wrongs to be alleged in a single complaint without separation or election. The defendants demurred and moved to make the complaint more certain and specific, arguing improper joinder of causes and seeking clarification that the action sounded in tort rather than contract. The trial court granted the motion in part by requiring amendment to eliminate any contract-based claims while allowing the jumbled tort allegations to stand. On appeal, the opinion concludes that the amended complaint complies with the Jumbling Act because the various torts were closely related parts of a single injury arising from a breach of legal duty, and therefore all exceptions should be overruled and the judgment affirmed.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute over the priority of liens on proceeds from the sale of livestock and crops, where Catawba Fertilizer Co. sought to enforce an agreement that its $884.32 mortgage would be paid before the South Carolina Agricultural Loan Association's larger $15,006.06 mortgage. The fertilizer company had advanced supplies including guano and pest-control materials to the Gibson defendants in 1927, relying on a written waiver from the Association and Bank that explicitly prioritized payment of the smaller mortgage. The trial court ruled for the plaintiff, directing application of the funds according to the waiver agreement rather than strictly applying the two-funds doctrine. The core reasoning was that the Association had contractually agreed to the priority in exchange for the plaintiff's additional advances that benefited all parties, the plaintiff had partially performed by providing the supplies, and the Association's refusal to apply livestock sale proceeds violated that agreement; amendments to pleadings were also upheld as conforming to the evidence without changing the cause of action.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Chantry v. Pettit Motor Co., two plaintiffs sued the defendant car dealership for damages from a rear-end collision on January 28, 1929, alleging that the Buick involved was driven negligently by the defendant's employee; the plaintiffs sought $10,000 and $20,000 respectively for injuries and property damage. The defendant admitted ownership of the car but denied that the driver was its agent or employee, asserting instead that he was the personal servant of the dealership president's family, who had traded in the vehicle but continued using it. After a joint trial, the circuit court denied the defendant's motion for a directed verdict and submitted the agency and scope-of-employment issues to the jury, which returned verdicts for the plaintiffs. On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed, holding that testimony about the driver's post-accident statements was admissible as res gestae or cured by subsequent questioning, and that evidence of the car's possession and use by someone connected to the defendant was sufficient to create a jury question on agency under precedents such as Osteen v. S. C. Cotton Oil Co.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case involved a claim and delivery action by plaintiff McNeal against defendant Herring to recover possession of crops and chattels or their value under a chattel mortgage for $160 that matured in September 1927. Herring had tendered $100 before maturity, later deposited the full $160 with the clerk of court, and a settlement order was entered dismissing the case after an agreement for partial payment from the deposit; however, the bank holding the funds failed, leading the plaintiff to successfully move to rescind the dismissal. At trial, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment of $100 or the property, denied the defendant's motions for directed verdict and dismissal of the proceedings, and refused a new trial. On appeal, the court held there was no error in the trial court's rulings on the motions, the effect of the tender, or the procedural orders, and affirmed the judgment.

propertyprocedure

Campbell v. Life Casualty Ins. Co. was a slander lawsuit filed in South Carolina state court, in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendants accused him of being short in cash and threatened to report the shortage to a bonding company, implying criminal misappropriation of funds. The jury awarded the plaintiff $1,000 in actual damages jointly and $2,500 in punitive damages against each defendant, and the trial judge modified the verdict to make the actual damages joint while upholding the punitive awards. On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, ruling that the alleged statements could reasonably be interpreted as charging a crime under their ordinary meaning, that sufficient evidence supported the plaintiff's claims to submit the case to the jury, and that the challenged testimony was admissible.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

The case Ward v. Atlantic Coast Line R. was an appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court from a circuit court judgment. The court affirmed the circuit court's decision, adopting the reasons assigned by Judge Shipp. Justices Bease, Stabeer, and Carter concurred in the result, while Justice Cothran dissented.

procedure

This case involved a partition action among tenants in common to sell a tract of land, where W.E. Findley bid on the property at auction for J. Andrew Williams. After the sale, non-parties W.E. Harrison and F.F. Norris petitioned the court claiming Findley had bid for them instead, leading to a motion to set aside the sale; supporting affidavits were submitted, allegations of fraud were withdrawn, and the original plaintiffs joined the petition. The court, hearing arguments focused on the chilling of the sale, granted the motion and ordered the sale voided with a resale directed. The core reasoning was that a misunderstanding arose because Findley, who had been engaged to bid for Williams, failed to disclose this to Harrison and Norris, whose potential competition was thereby suppressed, and that Findley's conduct as agent bound Williams while the plaintiffs were entitled to protection of their interests in maximizing the sale price.

propertyprocedure

The case Mullally v. Garner Realty Co. involved an appeal to the court. The court reviewed Judge Dennis' order and found it satisfactory, leading to an affirmation of the judgment. The decision was unanimous among the participating justices, who included Cothran, Blease, Stabler, and Carter.

property

The case involved H.C. Bridges who was charged in Greenville County with possessing 11 pints of whisky. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine months of hard labor, with three months to be served and the balance suspended during good behavior. Bridges appealed on the ground that the sentence was excessively heavy and unreasonable. The South Carolina Supreme Court overruled the exception as without merit and affirmed the judgment.

criminal law