Autrey v. Bell
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Memminger, J., Spartanburg, April, 1919. Action by W. A. Autrey against J. W. Bell for commissions as a salesman. From judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals. Exceptions 1-3 and 5-7 are as follows: (1) The Court erred in instructing the jury with respect to plaintiff’s testimony: “That is superfluous.
Read the full summary
Before Memminger, J., Spartanburg, April, 1919. Action by W. A. Autrey against J. W. Bell for commissions as a salesman. From judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals. Exceptions 1-3 and 5-7 are as follows: (1) The Court erred in instructing the jury with respect to plaintiff’s testimony: “That is superfluous. This witness has covered it in a most clear way; what is the use of reiterating it?” — it being respectfully submitted that such statement (a) passed upon the credibility and weight to be given this witness’s testimony; and (b) conveyed to the jury the Court’s estimate of the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
This is an action for commissions under a contract between the parties for sale of certain commodities, the allegation being that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant to render to the defendant certain personal service. The case was tried before Judge Memminger, and a jury, at the April term of Court for Spartanburg county, nd resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $127.78.
iter motion for a new trial was refused and judgment entered defendant appeals.
1 Exceptions 1, 2, and 3, impute error on the part of his Honor, by…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Moss v. Porter Brothers, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1987
- Owings v. DavenportSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1928
- State v. SimmonsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1947