Revolution Mills v. Union Mills

5 Citing cases

  1. O'Barr v. Pioneer Life Ins. Co.

    172 S.C. 72 (S.C. 1934)   Cited 10 times

    Mr. Leon W. Harris, for appellant, cites: As to fraud: 160 S.E., 721; 148 S.E., 179; 24 S.E., 290; 78 S.E., 876; 84 S.E., 413; 104 S.E., 327; 124 S.E., 577; 109 S.E., 279; 133 S.E., 215; 101 S.E., 653; 104 S.E., 538. As to insurance contract: 86 S.E., 951; 112 S.E., 547; 124 S.E., 577; 104 S.E., 538. Waiver and estoppel: 32 S.E., 762; 117 S.E., 209; 100 S.E., 157; 156 S.E., 865; 154 S.E., 859; 164 S.E., 6; 154 S.E., 221. Messrs. Watkins Prince and Mann Plyer, for respondent, cite: New trial: 100 S.C. 281; 84 S.E., 531; 73 S.C. 43; 52 S.E., 674; 51 S.C. 401; 29 S.E., 2; 94 S.C. 224; 77 S.E., 945; 95 S.C. 471; 79 S.E., 645; 93 S.C. 367; 98 S.C. 42; 129 S.C. 79; 123 S.E., 788; 134 S.C. 185; 132 S.E., 47; 107 S.C. 501; 93 S.E., 187. Fraud: 36 S.C. 213; 15 S.E., 562; 32 C.J., 1288; 88 S.C. 31; 70 S.E., 403. February 14, 1934.

  2. White et al. v. C. W.C. Railway Co

    121 S.C. 215 (S.C. 1922)   Cited 4 times

    Third. Because his Honor erred in holding that the statements contained in affidavits offered by defendant in motion for new trial are competent evidence and was such evidence as would have changed the results of the trial if it could have been presented to the jury. Mr. W.K. Charles, for appellant, cites: New trial onafter-discovered evidence: 20 Cyc., 905; 73 S.C. 43; 76 Ga. 602; 10 S.E., 737; 21 S.E., 893; 13 S.E., 637; 14 S.E., 22; 7 S.E., 142; 7 S.E., 352; 90 S.E., 1039; 92 S.E., 112; 96 S.E., 1016; 29 Cyc., 906. Where it merely contradictsor impeaches a witness: 19 Pa. Rep., 161; 39 N.W., 139; 17 Pac., 542; 91 S.E., 254; 92 S.E., 112; L.R.A., 1917F, 1043; 96 S.E., 322; 91 S.E., 254; 94 S.E., 310; 99 S.E., 234; 92 S.E., 112; 94 S.E., 811; 39 S.E., 472; 39 S.E., 478; 77 S.E., 77; 21 S.E., 893; 34 S.E., 165; 83 S.E., 747. Where it is of such a nature as will not probablychange the result: 70 S.C. 211; 73 S.C. 43; 75 S.C. 150; 19 S.E., 247; 76 S.C. 469; 109 S.C. 294; 96 S.E., 1016; 95 S.C. 471; 14 S.C. 432. Where there is evidenceto support verdict, and no error of law: 70 S.C. 211; 19 S.E., 247. Weight is for jury and not for Court on motionfor new trial: 75 S.C. 150; 72 S.C. 43; 72 S.C. 244; 73 S.C. 48; 73 S.C. 102; 74 S.C. 8; 70 S.C. 211. Messrs. F.B. Grier and Ross Owens, for respondent, cite: New trial on after-discovered evidence: 33 S.C.

  3. Turner v. Carey

    76 S.E.2d 671 (S.C. 1953)   Cited 10 times

    Messrs. S.R. Watt and T. Sam Means, Jr., of Spartanburg, for Appellant, cite: As to setting aside of verdict andgranting new trial being error on part of trial judge, whereverdict was supported by ample evidence: 39 Am. Jur. 139; 75 S.C. 150, 55 S.E. 160; 199 S.C. 100, 18 S.E.2d 605; 169 S.C. 41, 168 S.E. 143; 287 U.S. 502, 53 S.Ct. 249, 77 L.Ed. 457; 141 S.C. 238, 139 S.E. 459; 73 S.C. 43, 52 S.E. 674; 107 S.C. 501, 93 S.E. 187; 119 F. 862; 166 S.C. 445, 165 S.E. 181. As to granting of new trialbeing error where it was based partly on observation and inspectionof premises by Trial Judge after the trial, and withoutthe jury: 160 S.C. 229, 158 S.E. 409; 84 S.C. 139, 65 S.E. 1031. As to Trial Court erring in concluding that formof verdict of jury indicated confusion as to law of case: 147 S.C. 178, 150 S.E. 789; 155 S.C. 340, 152 S.E. 652; 175 S.C. 254, 178 S.E. 819; 217 S.C. 180, 60 S.E.2d 88; 66 C.J.S. 197; 66 C.J.S. 194. As to Trial Court erringin admitting testimony of statements of a witness, andconcluding that his testimony would have been favorable todefendant: 217 S.C. 489, 61 S.E.2d 53; 215 S.C. 175, 54 S.E.2d 769; 170 F.2d 764; 336 U.S. 951, 69 S.Ct. 880, 93 L.Ed. 1106; 190 S.C. 1, 1 S.E.2d 924; 20 Am. Jur. 193, Sec. 189; 121 S.C. 94, 113 S.E. 465; 135 S.C. 149, 133 S.E. 463; 216 S.C. 168, 57 S.E.2d 73; 213 S.C. 339, 49 S.E.2d 808; 210 S.C. 207, 42 S.E.2d 67; 206 S.C. 213,

  4. Jeter v. Liberty Life Insurance Co.

    127 S.C. 213 (S.C. 1924)   Cited 5 times

    Before SEASE, J., Union, 1923. Reversed. Action by A. Jeter against Liberty Life Insurance Co. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals. Messrs. Wallace Smith, for appellant, cite: Authorityof agent must be proven: 98 S.C. 282; 35 S.C. 521; 3 Rich., 46; 19 S.C. 373; 28 S.C. 159; 100 S.C. 263; 40 S.C. 450; 3 Brev., 475; 27 S.C. 134; 73 S.C. 134; 73 S.C. 43. Persondealing with agent must ascertain scope of his powers: 21 R.C.L., 853; 908, 909; 10 Rich. L., 338; 86 S.C. 167; 74 S.C. 74. Messrs. Sawyer Kennedy, for respondent, cite: Liabilityof principal for acts of agent: 27 S.C. 381; 65 S.C. 75; 69 S.C. 421; 76 S.C. 211; 97 S.C. 375; 102 S.C. 386; 115 S.C. 442; 21 R.C.L., 856. Evidence of agentfor insurance company: 51 S.C. 544; 96 U.S. 86. Findingsof facts by Magistrate not reviewable on appeal if supportedby any evidence: 117 S.E., 721; 122 S.C. 357. Implied contract: 13 C.J., 241, 242; 105 S.C. 475.

  5. Jones v. Willcox

    79 S.C. 69 (S.C. 1908)   Cited 2 times

    Messrs. Walter Hazard and Howell Gruber, contra. Mr. Hazard cites: Action of Circuit Judge in refusing newtrial is only reviewable when he commits error of law, andwhen the question is as to the weight of the evidence, thereis no error of law: 44 S.C. 325; 57 S.C. 243, 280, 358; 58 S.C. 70, 373; 59 S.C. 165, 523; 60 S.C. 201, 498; 70 S.C. 526; 52 S.C. 371; 53 S.C. 215; 23 S.C. 231; 21 S.C. 558; 36 S.C. 585; 61 S.C. 490; 62 S.C. 377, 546; 64 S.C. 26, 344, 566; 65 S.C. 197, 378, 610; 57 S.C. 400; 66 S.C. 61, 302, 419; 54 S.C. 599; 67 S.C. 18; 68 S.C. 53, 119, 446, 523; 69 S.C. 101; 72 S.C. 43, 244; 73 S.C. 43; 74 S.C. 89; 75 S.C. 150, 290, 390, 512. Where evidence admits of more than one inference new trialshould not be granted: 75 S.C. 141. There is no effort hereto found a presumption on a presumption or an inference onan inference: 72 S.C. 398; 75 S.C. 173, 182, 141. February 10, 1908.