Evans v. Watkins

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Evans v. Watkins

100 S.E. 153, 112 S.C. 419, 1919 S.C. LEXIS 158

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedAugust 25, 1919

Docket10253

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 100 S.E. 153 (Evans v. Watkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Evans v. Watkins, 100 S.E. 153, 112 S.C. 419, 1919 S.C. LEXIS 158 (S.C. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

The plaintiff, Evans, brought this action against the defendants to recover damages for injuries done to his mule, which was struck by an automobile, owned by the defendant, Mary Watkins, and driven by the defendant, Robert Watkins, and plaintiff attached the automobile, under *420 the provisions of the act of 1912 (27 St. at Large 737). Defendants admitted the injury, but alleged that it was caused by the negligence of Frank Lewellyn, who had charge of the mule at the time.

1 At the trial Lewellyn was examined as a witness for plaintiff, and, on cross-examination by defendants, he was allowed to testify, over objection of plaintiff, that he had paid plaintiff for the mule, and that the cause of action for damages had been assigned to him, after the commencement of the action and before the trial. Evans had not informed his attorneys of the assignment to Lewellyn. Upon the fact being brought out at the trial, defendants moved for a nonsuit, and Evans and Lewellyn moved for an order substituting Lewellyn in place of Evans as plaintiff.- The.Court granted the nonsuit and dismissed the complaint.

This was error. The motion to substitute should have been granted. Section 170 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: “No action shall abate by the death, marriage, or disability of a party, or by the transfer of any interest therein, if the cause of action survive or continue.”

Then follows provisions relating to the case of death, etc., and the section continues: “In case of any other transfer of interest, the action shall be continued in the name of the original party, or the Court may allow the person to whom the transfer is made to be substituted in the action.”

2 The right of action being an injury to property, was assignable (Montgomery v. Kerr, 1 Hill 291; Miller v. Newell, 20 S. C. 123, 139, and cases cited at top of page 140, 47 Am. Rep. 833; 4 Cyc. 24), and the substitution prayed for should have been granted.

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

The plaintiff, Evans, brought this action against the defendants to recover damages for injuries done to his mule, which was struck by an automobile, owned by the defendant, Mary Watkins, and driven by the defendant, Robert Watkins, and plaintiff attached the automobile, under *420 the provisions of the act of 1912 (27 St. at Large 737). Defendants admitted the injury, but alleged that it was caused by the negligence of Frank Lewellyn, who had charge of the mule at the time.

1 At the trial Lewellyn was examined as a witness for plaintiff, and, on cross-examination by defendants, he was allowed to testify, over objection of plaintiff, that he had paid plaintiff for the mule, and that the cause of action for damages had been assigned to him, after the commencement of the action and before the trial. Evans had not informed his attorneys of the assignment to Lewellyn. Upon the fact being brought out at the trial, defendants moved for a nonsuit, and Evans and Lewellyn moved for an order substituting Lewellyn in place of Evans as plaintiff.- The.Court granted the nonsuit and dismissed the complaint.

This was error. The motion to substitute should have been granted. Section 170 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: “No action shall abate by the death, marriage, or disability of a party, or by the transfer of any interest therein, if the cause of action survive or continue.”

Then follows provisions relating to the case of death, etc., and the section continues: “In case of any other transfer of interest, the action shall be continued in the name of the original party, or the Court may allow the person to whom the transfer is made to be substituted in the action.”

2 The right of action being an injury to property, was assignable (Montgomery v. Kerr, 1 Hill 291; Miller v. Newell, 20 S. C. 123, 139, and cases cited at top of page 140, 47 Am. Rep. 833; 4 Cyc. 24), and the substitution prayed for should have been granted.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.E. 153, 112 S.C. 419, 1919 S.C. LEXIS 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-watkins-sc-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack