C. Carl Cook, Esq., of Hartsville, for Appellants, cites: As to there being no evidence, direct or circumstantial, of anyfalse imprisonment: (S.C.) 10 S.E.2d 145. Messrs. McEachin, Townsend Zeigler, of Florence, for Respondent, cite: As to the Trial Judge properly refusingdefendant's motions for a nonsuit, directed verdict andfor judgment non obstante veredicto: 195 S.C. 101, 10 S.E.2d 145; 190 S.C. 414, 3 S.E.2d 209; 141 N.C. 317, 54 S.E. 291; 276 Fed. 245, 19 A.L.R. 664; 207 S.C. 416, 36 S.E.2d 73; 215 S.C. 116, 54 S.E.2d 536. As to statements, tending to show a person's state ofmind, if relevant to the issues, being admissible: 31 C.J.S. Sec. 255. p. 1005; 194 P. 5, 9, 184 Cal. 437, 17 A.L.R. 239; 120 F.2d 641, 662; 151 S.C. 391, 149 S.E. 111; 191 S.C. 301, 4 S.E.2d 270. As to the verdict not beingexcessive: 195 S.C. 101, 10 S.E.2d 145, 151; 22 Am. Jur., False Imprisonment, Sec. 129, 437; 129 S.C. 79, 123 S.E. 788; 178 S.C. 175, 182 S.E. 442; 186 S.C. 306, 195 S.E. 638; 192 S.C. 399, 7 S.E.2d 69; 211 S.C. 526, 46 S.E.2d 152, 155; 214 S.C. 410, 53 S.E.2d 60; 215 S.C. 404, 55 S.E.2d 522; 222 S.C. 66, 71 S.E.2d 585; 221 S.C. 376, 70 S.E.2d 862; 223 S.C. 421, 76 S.E.2d 301. June 23, 1955.
On December 5, 1938, the cause again came on for trial, Judge Featherstone presiding. From his order granting a nonsuit the case came to the Supreme Court, and resulted in a reversal, pursuant to which the cause was remanded for a new trial as to actual damages. See Westbrook v. Hutchison, 190 S.C. 414, 3 S.E.2d 207, wherein the opinion was delivered by Mr. Justice Baker; and it contains a very lucid and adequate statement of the legal principles involved, which are applicable to certain issues raised in the instant appeal. While the facts are quite sufficiently stated there for the purposes of that appeal, the Court expressly refrained from going into detail because the case was remanded for a new trial; which was had before Judge Bellinger and a jury on December 7, 1939, resulting in a verdict in favor of plaintiff, from which the instant appeal is taken. The complaint herein sets forth in detail the facts upon which the charge of false imprisonment was based, alleging that the defendants conspired together, aiding and abetting each other; but it is also alleged that each of the defendants "individually and collectively, willfully and maliciously imprisoned, detained and restrained the plaintiff of his liberty," to his damage in the sum of $5,000.00.
Action for injunction by D.D. Overton, trading as Overton Manufacturing Company, against E.G. Chadwick and another. From a decree recommitting the entire case to special referee for new trial of all issues involved, the defendants appeal. Messrs. E.L. Ard and J.D. O'Bryan, for appellants, cite: Power of Circuit Judge to vacate order of another: 108 S.C. 329; 94 S.E., 53; 176 S.C. 235; 180 S.E., 43; 11 S.C.L., 488; 141 S.C. 136; 139 S.E., 217; 190 S.C. 414; 3 S.E.2d 207; 187 S.C. 260; 196 S.E., 283; 97 S.C. 457; 81 S.E., 157. Messrs. M.L. Meadors and Royall Wright, for respondent, cite: Power of Circuit Judge to order new trial: 16 S.C. 116; 17 S.C. 207; 47 S.C. 263; 25 S.E., 193; 64 S.C. 338; 42 S.E., 153; 56 S.C. 12; 33 S.E., 781; 20 R.C.L., 300; 92 S.C. 219; 75 S.E., 459. Appeal: 17 S.C. 541; 51 S.C. 405; 29 S.E., 56; 8 S.C. 50; 19 S.C. 554; 18 S.C. 601; 82 S.C. 502; 64 S.E., 412; 53 S.C. 224; 31 S.E., 227; 93 S.C. 487; 76 S.E., 1099.
Nixon Grocery Co. v. Spann et al., 108 S.C. 329, 94 S.E., 531, 534. In the case of Westbrook v. Hutchison, 190 S.C. 414, 3 S.E.2d 207, 209, in which the opinion of this Court was filed May 30, 1939, the excerpt from the opinion of this Court in Matheson v. McCormac, supra, hereinabove cited, is cited with approval and there is added to it the following notation. See also McLaurin v. Newton, 183 S.C. 379, 191 S.E., 59. After which the Westbrook case continues: "From the foregoing authorities, it would appear to be beyond cavil that upon the second trial of the case the trial Judge was bound by the order of the trial Judge on the first trial, in which a verdict as to punitive damages was directed in favor of the respondents.
Nonetheless, this court has found the United States liable under South Carolina law and not the Constitution. South Carolina law does not allow for a defense of good faith in an action for false imprisonment. Westbrook, 195 S.C. at 110-11, 10 S.E.2d at 148 (1940) (quoting 190 S.C. 414, 3 S.E.2d 209: "Nor is it necessary that the wrongful act be committed with malice, or ill-will, or even the slightest wrongful intention.") Accordingly, this court finds the United States liable to this plaintiff for false imprisonment from May 21, 1980, to May 29, 1980. As to his damages, the South Carolina Supreme Court has stated that there is "no market value for injured feelings or wrongful invasion of one's rights of personal dignity . . . Human liberty is difficult of measurement in dollars and cents."
6; 208 S.C. 462, 38 S.E.2d 492; 246 S.C. 144, 142 S.E.2d 864. As to the Trial Judge'simproperly coercing the jury to find a verdict: 106 S.C. 150, 90 S.E. 596; 126 S.C. 437, 120 S.E. 230; Section 582, Code Civ. Prac. 1922; 216 S.C. 552, 59 S.E.2d 155. Messrs. Daniel R. McLeod, Atty. Gen., Joseph C. Coleman,Deputy Atty. Gen., of Columbia, and Marion H.Kinon, Sol., of Dillon, for Respondent, cite: As to the Defendant'sfailing to comply with the terms of Section 43-232of the Code of Laws of South Carolina by timely demandinga preliminary hearing: 166 S.C. 430, 164 S.E. 912; 251 S.C. 431, 163 S.E.2d 220; 178 S.C. 89, 182 S.E. 311; 166 S.C. 430, 164 S.E. 912; 145 Conn. 136, 139 A.2d 601; 26 Conn. Sup. 435, 226 A.2d 665; 51 F. Supp. 462; 178 S.C. 89, 182 S.E. 311; 251 S.C. 431, 163 S.E.2d 220; 243 S.C. 238, 133 S.E.2d 320. As to the doctrine of res judicata applying to motions toquash and/or dismiss the indictment made and denied atboth prior trials: 13 S.C. 285; 193 S.C. 225, 8 S.E.2d 326; 190 S.C. 414, 3 S.E.2d 207. As to the Court'sproperly allowing the high school principal to testify fromthe records and to admit the records into evidence concerningattendance: 223 S.C. 377, 76 S.E.2d 151. September 11, 1972.
Messrs. Daniel R. McLeod, Attorney General, and EdwardB. Latimer, Assistant Attorney General, of Columbia, for Appellant, cite: As to powers of circuit Judges insentencing prisoners: 114 S.C. 54, 103 S.E. 86; 35 S.C. 269, 14 S.E. 620; 224 S.C. 320, 78 S.E.2d 633. As toone circuit judge not having the authority to change theorder of another circuit judge: 103 S.E. 86; 14 S.E. 620; 70 S.C. 430, 50 S.E. 16; 224 S.C. 320, 78 S.E.2d 633; 190 S.C. 414, 3 S.E.2d 207; 108 S.C. 329, 94 S.E. 531. Messrs. Herbert W. Louthian and J. Lewis Cromer, of Columbia, for Respondent.
having no rightto challenge final judgments of the Court of Common Pleas,from which no appeal was ever taken, by a suit in equitybased solely on legal and not on equitable grounds: 146 S.C. 385; 218 S.C. 384; 4 Pom. Eq. Juris., Sec. 1350; 181 S.C. 369; 209 S.C. 357. As to a person not being able toobtain title, by adverse possession, to a section of a citystreet: 37 S.C. 327; 75 S.C. 332; 129 S.C. 89; 222 S.C. 24; 42 S.E. 466 (Ga.). As to permissive possession neverripening into title: 9 Wheaton 241, 6 L.Ed. 81; 107 S.C. 397; 137 S.C. 468; 162 S.C. 177; 224 S.C. 452; 226 S.C. 366, 85 S.E.2d 279. As to a litigant having noright to shift his position and attempt to recover on a whollydifferent theory: 82 S.C. 97, 63 S.E. 449; 151 S.C. 359, 149 S.E. 1; 202 S.C. 384, 25 S.E.2d 243; 208 S.C. 103, 37 S.E.2d 305; 227 S.C. 187. As to finaljudgment of Court, unappealed from, not being up set fortrivial reasons: 122 S.C. 179, 115 S.E. 212; 183 S.C. 379, 191 S.E. 59; 187 S.C. 260, 196 S.E. 883; 190 S.C. 414, 3 S.E.2d 207; 191 S.C. 14, 3 S.E.2d 243; 193 S.C. 225, 8 S.E.2d 326; 321 U.S. 96, 88 L.Ed. 561; 321 U.S. 649, 88 L.Ed. 987. Wylie H. Caldwell, Esq., of Florence, for Respondent,City of Florence.
Messrs. F.A. Thompson and J. Reuben Long, of Conway, for Appellant, cite: As to a marriage being a civil contractand can be legally entered into only by the free consent andagreement of the parties: 44 S.C. 195; 35 Am. Jur. 192. As to duress rendering a marriage void or voidable: 35 Am.Jur. 243; 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 803. As to what constitutesfalse imprisonment: 190 S.C. 414, 3 S.E.2d 207; 22 Am. Jur. 361. As to there being no evidence of seductionupon promise to marry: McKelvey on Evidence, 5th Ed., 165. As to appellate court reviewing both the findings of factas well as the law in an equity case: 206 S.C. 1, 32 S.E.2d 889. Messrs. Epps Abbott, of Conway, and L.B. Dawes, of Loris, for Respondent, cite: As to duty on appellate courtto sustain findings of fact by the master, concurred in by thecircuit judge: 144 S.C. 70, 142 S.E. 36; 150 S.C. 244, 147 S.E. 874; 164 S.C. 20, 161 S.E. 767; 178 S.C. 87, 182 S.E. 162; 183 S.C. 68, 190 S.E. 114. As to evidenceof duress being insufficient to warrant annullment: 35 Am.Jur. 242; 189 S.C. 497, 1 S.E.2d 784.
192 U.S. 355, 48 L.Ed., 476. As to error ofCourt in holding that plaintiffs are not barred and estoppedby laches from maintaining this action: 21 S.C. 112; 62 S.C. 73, 39 S.E., 950; 76 S.C. 167, 56 S.E., 780; 106 S.C. 310, 91 S.E., 312; 27 A. (Vt.), 147; 179 F. (C.C.A.), 844; 19 C.J., 841; 54 C.J., 726; 43 S.C. 436, 21 S.E., 277; 62 S.C. 73, 39 S.E., 950; 64 S.C. 502, 42 S.E., 594; 72 S.C. 491, 52 S.E., 592; 97 S.C. 214, 81 S.E., 489; 106 S.C. 210, 91 S.E., 312; 106 S.C. 346, 91 S.E., 293; 138 S.C. 92, 135 S.E., 643; 157 S.C. 297, 154 S.E., 415; 171 S.C. 269, 172 S.E., 222; 191 S.C. 105, 3 S.E.2d 816; 3 Rich. Eq. (24 S.C. Eq.), 368; 4 Rich. Eq. (25 S.C. Eq.), 349; 23 S.C. 143; 67 S.C. 74, 45 S.E., 143; 3 Rich. Eq. (24 S.C. Eq.), 504. As to error with respect tonature of suit, and failure to follow law of the case: 182 S.C. 413, 183 S.E., 758; 191 S.C. 105, 3 S.E.2d 816; 125 S.C. 63, 118 S.E., 26; 161 S.C. 235, 159 S.E., 546; 187 S.C. 260, 196 S.E., 883; 188 S .C., 322, 199 S.E., 296; 190 S.C. 414, 3 S.E.2d 207; 132 S.C. 45; 128 S.E., 40. As to error in holding breach of guardianshipbond established, and in awarding judgment therefor: 154 S.C. 456; 470, 153 S.E., 745; 187 S.C. 510, 517, 198 S.E., 36; 169 S.C. 263, 168 S.E., 705. As to error respectingallowance of interest: 2 Mill (9 S.C.L.), 151; 2 Bail. (18 S.C.L.), 362; 18 S.C. 366; 30 S.C. 342, 9 S.E., 271; 70 S.C. 1, 48 S.E., 619; 169 S.C. at p. 304, 168 S.E., 263; 191 S.C. at p. 139, 3 S.E.2d 816; 2 Hill Eq. (11 S.C. Eq.), 277; 27 Am. Dec., 72; 22 S.C. 147; 15 S.C. 110; 57 S.C. 459, 35 S.E., 754; 104 S.C. 167, 88 S.E., 372; 1 McCord (12 S.C.L.), 503; 3 McCord (14 S.C.L.), 112; 2 Bail. (18 S.C.L.), 504; McM. Eq. (16 S.C. Eq.), 103; McM. Eq. (16 S.C. Eq.), 197; 3 Rich. Eq. (24 S.C. Eq.), 225; 10 Rich. Eq. (31 S.C. Eq.), 149; 27 S.C. 177, 3 S.E., 84; 34 S.C. 240, 13 S.E., 417; 90 S.C. 14, 72 S.E., 550; 2 Strob. (14 S.C. Reprint), 54; 167 S.C. 327; 166 S.E., 415. Messrs. Grimsley Nesmith, of Florence, S.C. for Respondent, cite: As to all e