Legal Opinion
Sullivan v. Calhoun
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided August 1, 1921No. 10692PublishedCited by 23 opinions
Before Mauldin, J., Greenville, October, 1920. Action by Ferdinand Sullivan against Peter and Sara Calhoun. Judgment for plaintiff and defendants appeal. cite: No punitive damages recoverable for breach of contract in absence of fraud: 77 S. C. 188; 91 S. C. 417; 96 S. C. 240; 112 S. C. 499. cite: Fraud: 12 R. C. L,. 229. Sufficient plea of fraud: 112 S. C. 71.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Gary.
The question raised by the exceptions is whether the plaintiff, under the allegations of the complaint, was entitled to punitive damages.
The complaint is as follows:
“(1) That in February, 1918, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendants, for the occupation and cultivation of about five acres of land on the Augusta road, near the city of Greenville, which belongs to the defendant Sarah Calhoun, for the year 1919, the defendants furnishing the stock and the plaintiff the labor upon an equal division of the crop when…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Russell v. SouthardSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Welborn v. DixonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1904
3Cited by23 opinions
- Conner v. City of Forest AcresSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2002
- Harper v. EthridgeCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1986
- Holland v. Spartanburg Herald-Journal Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1932
- Edens v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1988
- West v. Service Life & Health Ins. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1951
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.