Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1939

American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Sloan

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided May 4, 1939 · Bonham, Chiee, Stabler, Messrs, Baker, Risi-Iburne, Ride, Carter

2 S.E.2d 796; 190 S.C. 252; 1939 S.C. LEXIS 38 (South Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Messrs. James A. Herbert and Wilton H. Earle , for appellant, cite: Employee under terms of policy: 104 S.E., 82 ; 85 A.L.R., 784; 26 F.2d 574 ; 278 U.S. 630 ; 196 S.E., 815 ; 12 S.E., 411; 141 S.E., 506; 120 N.E., 350 ; 178 P., 822; 44 N.E., 218; 194 S.E., 479 ; 196 S.E., 815 ; 125 S.E., 123. Liability of insurer for acts of independent contractors or their employees: 36 C.J., 1056; 29 N.E., 529; 173 P., 1006 ; 116 N.E., 1080. Duty of insurer to defend suit: 153 N.Y.S., 1148; 167 N.E., 884 ; 180 S.C. 459 ; 186 S.E., 399 ; 174 P., 110 ; 188 S.E., 581; 183 N.W., 656; 139 S.E., 513; 163 S.C. 229 ; 161 S.E., 491 . Construction of contract: 99 S.W.2d 984 ; 180 S.C. 72 ; 185 S.E., 47 ; 233 S.W. 78 ; 2 N.E.2d 212 ; 96 U.S. 547 . Possession of policy: 91 U.S. 45 ; 208 S.W. 124 ; 87 F., 63; 176 N.C. 652 . As to oral agreement to issue insurance: 89 F.2d 194 ; 41 N.W., 373; 94 U.S. 621 . Reformation of contract: 182 S.C. 384 ; 189 S.E., 657 ; 70 S.E., 1086; 209 N.W., 104 ; 257 F., 418; 233 S.W. 78 ; 204 N.W., 159 . Messrs. Wyche Burgess , for respondent, cite: Construction of contract: 103 S.C. 67 ; 139 S.C. 442 ; 157 S.C. 221 ; 135 S.C. 89 ; 133 S.E., 215 ; 161 S.C. 314 ; 159 S.E., 635 ; 219 N.W., 49 ; 123 So., 162; 170 S.C. 151 ; 169 S.E., 837 .

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Bonham.

An inspection of the record in this case discloses that the pleadings are voluminous; the examination and cross examination of witnesses were long drawn out, motions and the arguments of motions were extended beyond the usual, and the exhibits are many. The case was well argued on Circuit, and has been presented on appeal fully and ably.

*270 Judge Plyler, who heard the case in the County Court for Greenville County, evidently gave careful attention to the case when before him on trial, and he has rendered a decision, by his decree, which evinces careful consideration, and comprehension of all the issues involved. It would be a work of supererogation to add to it, and it would detract from its strength to take anything from it. This Court is fully satisfied with it.

Ret it be reported.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. ChiEE Justice Stabler, Messrs. Justices Baker and Risi-iburne and Mr. Acting Associate Justice R. D. Ride concur. Mr. Justice Carter did not participate on account of illness.

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