When statement of value may be consideredfraudulent: 27 S.E., 873. Messrs. Robert Moorman and D.W. Robinson, for respondents, cite: Exceptions defective: 99 S.C. 217; 114 S.C. 323; 121 S.C. 88; 122 S.C. 83; 126 S.C. 272; 114 S.C. 254; 110 S.C. 163; 100 S.C. 43; 118 S.C. 93; 119 S.C. 54; 123 S.C. 23; 121 S.C. 360; 121 S.C. 328; 122 S.C. 272. Where no ground of objection isstated erroneous admission of testimony will not be consideredon appeal: 53 S.C. 80; 66 S.C. 68; 87 S.C. 331; 89 S.C. 378; 90 S.C. 513; 92 S.C. 236; 94 S.C. 324; 100 S.C. 115; 103 S.C. 467; 110 S.C. 122; 110 S.C. 463; 115 S.C. 500; 120 S.C. 380; 121 S.C. 49; 121 S.C. 426; 124 S.C. 345. Evidence itself was admissiblein discretion of Court: 65 S.C. 158; 41 S.C. 193; 110 S.C. 128; 7 Rich. L., 535. False swearing thatwill work a forfeiture of insurance: 32 C.J., 1270; 125 S.C. 470; 82 S.C. 426; 151 N.Y. Supp., 945. Increaseof hazard by person other than insured will not avoid policyunless insured has knowledge of such increase in time toprevent loss: 28 L.R.A. (N.S.), 218; 91 Atl., 978; 37 L.R.A. (N.S.), 603; 97 S.E., 50; 66 N.E., 454; L.R.A., 1915-D 187; 26 Cyc., 1202. Provisions of policystrictly construed against insurer: 115 S.C. 53; 102 S.C. 215; 96 S.C. 430; 96 S.C. 44; 94 S.C. 299; 263 U.S. 167. Mortgagee not bound by arbitration and award towhich he did not assent: 18 Sou., 414; 14 Ky. L. Rep., 859; 194 N.W., 6; 76 So., 153; 63 Tex. 282[ 63 Tex. 282] [ 63 Tex. 282][ 63 Tex. 282]; 13 Atl., 648; 124 Mass. 126; 19 N.E., 159; 5 R.I. 394; 71 N. Y., 509; 17 L.R.A., 514; 97 Ill., 439; 7
Messrs. F.B. Grier and Harley Blatt, for appellant, cite: Liability for communicated fires: 1 Civ. Code, 1912, Sec. 3226; 83 S.C. 87 S.C. 180. Circumstances as a basisfor circumstantial evidence cannot be presumed, but mustbe proven: 92 S.E., 1; 100 U.S. 693; 1 Moore, Facts, 600. No testimony on which to base verdict: 99 S.C. 417; 197 S.C. 367. Messrs. Holman Boulware, for respondent, cite: Grounds of objection must be stated: 79 S.C. 120; 90 S.C. 366; 90 S.C. 513; 92 S.C. 236; 100 S.C. 115; 94 S.C. 324; 110 S.C. 122; 111 S.C. 463. Sufficientevidence to support verdict: 115 S.C. 500; 113 S.E., 73; 80 S.C. 460. May 28, 1923.
Messrs. Elliott McLain, C.N. Sapp and C.S. Monteith, for appellants, cite: Act which if done by one wouldnot be actionable, will not be made actionable if done byseveral by agreement: 24 How., 407; 37 L.R.A., 455; 58 L.R.A., 135; 91 N.Y.S., 185. Effect of malice or badmotive: 62 L.R.A., 673; A.C. (1898), 1; A.C. (1892), 25; Cooley, Torts (2d. Ed.), 832, 836. As to action takenin furtherance of trade: 21 L.R.A. (N.S.), 550; 6 A.L. R., 909. Evidence of former recommendation not admissible: 77 S.C. 157; 61 S.C. 304. Agency contract lawful: 75 S.C. 378. On the appeal from order settling case: 110 S.C. 374; 108 S.C. 399; 110 S.C. 266; 110 S.C. 573. Messrs. H.N. Edmunds and Edward L. Craig, for respondent, cite: Questions which should have been madeon former appeal will not now be considered: 6 Rich. Eq., 320; Dud. Eq., 28; 17 S.C. 263; 26 S.C. 588; 32 S.C. 291; 43 S.C. 388; Code Proc. 1912, Sec. 395; 90 S.C. 232; 110 S.C. 122. Exception must be made on groundstated: 90 S.C. 513; 35 S.C. 609; 37 S.C. 572; 30 S.C. 529; 15 S.C. 58. Reasoning of Judge not proper basisof exception: 14 S.C. 286; 15 S.C. 58; 16 S.C. 351; 25 S.C. 525; 28 S.C. 606; 36 S.C. 368. Law againstunlawful restraints: 87 S.C. 18; 111 U.S. 746; 165 U.S. 594; 84 S.C. 560; 11 East 574; 2 El. Bl., 216; Ap. Cas., 495; 52 L.R.A., 115; 241 U.S. 257; 68 A.L.R., 202; 90 A.L.R., 126; 31 Am. Dec., 19; 107 Mass. 555; 53 N.J. Eq., 101; 62 Fed., 803; 52 N.J.L., 284; 10 L.R.A., 184; 83 Fed., 912; 195 U.S. 206; 38 Cyc., 519. Recovery may be had against one member of a conspiracy: 28 Atl., 669; 7 Hill, 104; 42 Hum., 154. Combination inrestraint of trade: 220 U.S. 373. Act, harmless whendone by one, may become a public wrong when done inconcert: 217 U.S. 440; 1 B.R.C., 197. Justifiable cause: 35 L.R.A., 722. October 10, 1921. Rehearing denied January 2, 1923.
Even where testimony is received under objection, an appellant in this Court must rely upon the specific grounds of objection assigned on the trial. Clayton v. RailwayCo., 110 S.C. 122; 96 S.E., 479. Since the record shows that no objection was interposed to the admission of the alleged incompetent testimony, and that no ruling was ever made thereon by the Circuit Judge, the conclusion follows that the exceptions must be overruled, unless good and sufficient cause has been shown for exempting the appellant's case from the application of the general rule. Careful consideration has been accorded the contention, earnestly urged by appellant's counsel, that the general rule should not be applied in the case at bar.
Plaintiff did not invoke the benefitsof the Sherman Act: 152 U.S. 454; 155 U.S. 102; 155 U.S. 482; 155 U.S. 488; 16 L.R.A. 593. As to the rightof respondent to maintain this action: 241 — 257; 177 Mass. 485, 487; 528 L.R.A. 115; 83 Am. St. Rep. 28; 59 N.E. 125. Where a violent or malicious act is done to aman's occupation, profession or way of getting a livelihood,then an action lies in all cases: Addison on Torts, sec. 22 (Wood's Edition). Messrs. Craig, Edmunds and M.L. Smith, submit (on the motion for a rehearing, or a modification of the opinion filed): That the opinion of the Court should be confined tothe question raised by the appeal, and the decision limitedto the question raised by the exceptions: 90 S.C. 222; 110 S.C. 122. The plaintiff would have the right to apply forleave to amend his complaint at any time before trial, toremedy any deficit in his pleading: 81 S.C. 574; 80 S.C. 1; 80 S.C. 213; 82 S.C. 1; 85 S.C. 259; 90 S.C. 229; 91 S.C. 51; 101 S.C. 86. May 19, 1920.