United States Casualty Co. v. Consolidated Auto Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

United States Casualty Co. v. Consolidated Auto Co.

98 S.E. 133, 111 S.C. 355, 1919 S.C. LEXIS 27

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJanuary 21, 1919

Docket10126

StatusPublished

This text of 98 S.E. 133 (United States Casualty Co. v. Consolidated Auto 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

United States Casualty Co. v. Consolidated Auto Co., 98 S.E. 133, 111 S.C. 355, 1919 S.C. LEXIS 27 (S.C. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This was a suit for $113.84, the amount of two insurance premiums on policies issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. The case was tried before Judge Townsend, and a jury, at the May term of Court, 1918, for Richland county. The defendant by its answer alleged payment, and the sole question involved in the case was: Was there any evidence of payment ? At the close of the testimony in the case, his Honor, on motion of plaintiff, directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, on the ground that defendant had failed to show payment. After entry of judgment, defendant appealed, and by exception challenges the correctness of his Honor in directing the verdict.

An examination of all the testimony in the case convinces us that the only reasonable inference to be drawn was that there was no payment, and his Honor was correct in directing a verdict for the.plaintiff.

Exception overruled.

Judgment 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 Watts.

This was a suit for $113.84, the amount of two insurance premiums on policies issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. The case was tried before Judge Townsend, and a jury, at the May term of Court, 1918, for Richland county. The defendant by its answer alleged payment, and the sole question involved in the case was: Was there any evidence of payment ? At the close of the testimony in the case, his Honor, on motion of plaintiff, directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, on the ground that defendant had failed to show payment. After entry of judgment, defendant appealed, and by exception challenges the correctness of his Honor in directing the verdict.

An examination of all the testimony in the case convinces us that the only reasonable inference to be drawn was that there was no payment, and his Honor was correct in directing a verdict for the.plaintiff.

Exception overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 S.E. 133, 111 S.C. 355, 1919 S.C. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-casualty-co-v-consolidated-auto-co-sc-1919.