Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1918

Snelgrove v. Anderson County

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided January 26, 1918 · Watts, Ci-Iiee, Gary, Messrs, Eraser, Gage, Hydrick

95 S.E. 1055; 109 S.C. 222; 1918 S.C. LEXIS 215 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. Kurtz P. Smith and J.S. Acker , for defendant-appellant, cite: As to agency: 14 S.C. 403 ; 74 S.C. 221 . As to no negligence being shown on part of defendant: Story Bailments, 9th Edit., secs. 25-32; 19 S.C. 30 . As to degree of care due from bailee: 19 S.C. 30 . As to a county being liable for negligence in matters arising out of contract: 20 S.C. 166 ; 57 S.C. 302 . As to Judge's power to reduce amount first found: 47 S.C. 39 . Messrs. Brezeale Pearman , for plaintiff-appellant, cite: As to proof of agency: 73 S.C. 57 . As to the action being based on contract: 44 S.C. 487 . As to authority of agent to bind principal: 99 S.C. 467 ; 92 S.C. 42 ; 74 S.C. 221 . Defendant estopped to deny agency of Holland: 31 Cyc. 1237-1238. As to jurisdiction of Judge: 32 S.C. 86 . As to measure of damages: 34 Cyc. 1570; 1 N. McC. 334; 18 S.C. 184 ; 3 Rich. 194; 13 Cyc. 170.

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from an order of Judge Rice, filed July 11, 1917, wherein he granted judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $175. Defendant appeals, and by all its exceptions, except one, raises questions of fact.

The only exception not upon a question of fact is “that there is no competent testimony tending to establish agency.” There is sufficient evidence to support the Circuit Court’s decree, and the exceptions made by the defendant are overruled. The exceptions of the plaintiffs are overruled, as being without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Ci-iiee Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices Eraser and Gage concur. Mr. Justice Hydrick did not sit.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.