Howard v. Union Buffalo Mills Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Howard v. Union Buffalo Mills Co.

115 S.E. 899, 122 S.C. 518, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 261

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJuly 6, 1922

Docket10964

StatusPublished

This text of 115 S.E. 899 (Howard v. Union Buffalo Mills Co.) 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

Howard v. Union Buffalo Mills Co., 115 S.E. 899, 122 S.C. 518, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 261 (S.C. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

This is an action for damages for personal injury. The plaintiff was working for the defendant as a laborer. The plaintiff was cutting wood with a woodcutting machine, when his hand was injured by the machine. This action was brought for damages.

The defendant set up a release for which it paid $30. The plaintiff, in his reply, pleaded fraud in the execution of the release; that the defendant owed him $30 for back pay, and when he took the $30 he thought, and was told, that he was receiving his back pay; that the plaintiff cannot read, and the release was fraudulent. The defendant demurred to the reply, on the ground that the reply did not allege that the $30 had been returned or tendered to the defendant. The demurrer was overruled. The defendant moved for a nonsuit on the same ground. This was refused. The defendant appealed. There was evidence that, at the time the release was filed, the defendant owed to the plaintiff $32. If that was true, then the plaintiff was not bound to return the money paid him for wages. Of course, if the defendant did not owe the plaintiff any back wages, and the money was paid for the release, then the defendant’s law applies, and the plaintiff is barred from *520 a recovery, unless he return or offer to return the money so received and successfully attack the release. That question properly carried the case to the jury and saved the reply.

The judgment is affirmed.

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 Fraser.

This is an action for damages for personal injury. The plaintiff was working for the defendant as a laborer. The plaintiff was cutting wood with a woodcutting machine, when his hand was injured by the machine. This action was brought for damages.

The defendant set up a release for which it paid $30. The plaintiff, in his reply, pleaded fraud in the execution of the release; that the defendant owed him $30 for back pay, and when he took the $30 he thought, and was told, that he was receiving his back pay; that the plaintiff cannot read, and the release was fraudulent. The defendant demurred to the reply, on the ground that the reply did not allege that the $30 had been returned or tendered to the defendant. The demurrer was overruled. The defendant moved for a nonsuit on the same ground. This was refused. The defendant appealed. There was evidence that, at the time the release was filed, the defendant owed to the plaintiff $32. If that was true, then the plaintiff was not bound to return the money paid him for wages. Of course, if the defendant did not owe the plaintiff any back wages, and the money was paid for the release, then the defendant’s law applies, and the plaintiff is barred from *520 a recovery, unless he return or offer to return the money so received and successfully attack the release. That question properly carried the case to the jury and saved the reply.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 S.E. 899, 122 S.C. 518, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-union-buffalo-mills-co-sc-1922.