King & Son v. Lane
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Purdy, J., Orangeburg, May, 1903. Action by B. F. King & Son against E. B. Kane and J. W. Smoak. From Circuit judgment plaintiffs appeal. cites : Verdict against defaulting defendant was error: 82 Cal., 184; 6 Ency.
Read the full summary
Before Purdy, J., Orangeburg, May, 1903. Action by B. F. King & Son against E. B. Kane and J. W. Smoak. From Circuit judgment plaintiffs appeal. cites : Verdict against defaulting defendant was error: 82 Cal., 184; 6 Ency. P. & P., 23; Code of Proc., 157, 296; 10 S. C., 295; 49 S. C., 7; SI Hun., 89. As to Court directing verdict: 13 S. C., 378; 42 S. C., 28; 26 S. C., 109; 31 S. C., 436; 14 S. C., 135. As to imperfect verdicts: Grab. & Wat. on New T., 1378, 1384; Brev., 113; 7 Halst., 852. Error for Judge to consider liability of defaulting defendant: Code of Proc., 189; 13 S. C., 479; Code…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Gary.
This is an action on an open account for lumber sold and delivered. A copy of the summons and complaint was served on both the defendants. The defendant, Kane, did not appear, answer or demur to the complaint, but defaulted, and an affidavit to that effect was duly made. The defendant, J. W. Smoak, answered the complaint.
The case was docketed on Calendar 1 and was not docketed on Calendar 3. The jury returned the following verdict: “We find for the plaintiff against E. B. Kane, $218.22. D. J. Fogle, foreman.”
The record contains this…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Devore v. GeigerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1894
3Cited by3 opinions
- Lorick & Lowrance, Inc. v. Julius H. Walker & Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1929
- Burst v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1931
- Plunkett v. Clearwater Bleachery & Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1908