Legal Opinion
Cannon v. PULLIAM MOTOR CO.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided September 20, 1956No. 17205PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Oxner, Justice.
This is an action against the dealer and manufacturer to recover damages for alleged breach of an automobile war ranty. The trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff against both defendants in the amount of $1,500.00. The trial Judge concluded that the verdict was excessive and granted a new trial unless plaintiff remitted on the record $500.00 of the verdict. This was done and judgment entered for $1,000.00.
The questions for determination are: (1) Did the trial Judge err in refusing a motion by defendants for a directed verdict? (2) Are the defendants entitled to a new trial…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Studebaker Corporation v. NailCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1950
- Wheeler v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1923
- Breedin v. SmithSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1923
- A. Baldwin Sales Co. v. MitchellSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1932
- Liquid Carbonic Co. v. CoclinSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1931
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
- Dennis Speerly v. General Motors, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2025
- Givan v. MacK Truck, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1978
- Aaron v. Hampton Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1962
- Deering Milliken Research Corp. v. Textured Fibres, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1970
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.