Pinson v. Bowles

106 S.E. 775, 116 S.C. 47, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 43
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedApril 13, 1921
Docket10608
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 106 S.E. 775 (Pinson v. Bowles) 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
Pinson v. Bowles, 106 S.E. 775, 116 S.C. 47, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 43 (S.C. 1921).

Opinions

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

*48 This is an action on a note. Defense, failure of consideration. -Cause tried before Judge Sease and a jury at the April term of Court, 1920, for Greenwood County, and resulted in a verdict in favor of- plaintiff for amount sued for.

Exceptions, six in number, allege error on the part of his ITonor.

1, 2 Exception 1 alleges on the part of his Honor in not allowing defendant to open and reply. This exception is overruled. The defendant was not prejudiced by such ruling, and at the tim[e of the? ruling no suggestion or intimation was given to* the Court that the defendant would be prejudiced by; such ruling, and by standing by and permitting the plaintiff to offer testimony without claiming the right at the proper time the defendant waived it, but later1 his Honor gave the defendant the right to reply in argument if they desired it. Ths certanly cured the error, if any.

3 Exceptions 2, 3, 4 and 5 allege error in his Honor’s charge. Taking the charge as a whole, the defendants were not prejudced,'and the charge as a whole was correct, applicable to the facts testified to, and the law of the case.

Exception 6 alleges error in allowing Ellis to testify as to certain facts. This was not prejudicial; the evidence was competent to show the situation at that time.

All exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.

Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Eraser, concur.

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

Related

Boone v. State Ex Rel. Department of Highways
1953 OK 253 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1953)
Sirgany v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States
175 S.E. 209 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1934)
Yancey v. Southern Wholesale Lumber Co.
123 S.E. 767 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 S.E. 775, 116 S.C. 47, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinson-v-bowles-sc-1921.