Case ID: sc_5/html/0473-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Wright, A. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HEARD NOVEMBER TERM, 1874.
    Winsmith vs. Walker.
    Tho Supreme Court will not interfere where no exception was taken to the chargo of the Judge, but only to the verdict of the jury.
    Before MOSES, J., at Spartanburg,--Term, 1873.
    This was an action by John Winsmith against Joseph Walker, to recover the value of five bales of cotton converted by the defendant.
    At the trial the plaintiff gave evidence tending to show that he was the owner of the five bales of cotton — they having been made on his land, in the year 1870, by one Smith, his farm laborer; and the defendant gave evidence tending to show that Smith made the cotton for himself; that he gave the defendant a lien on his crop of that year, under the “Act to secure advances for agricultural purposes;” and that he afterwards sold the cotton to defendant.
    The jury found for the plaintiff $93.
    The plaintiff moved for a new trial, and his motion being overruled, he appealed, on the grounds :
    1. That the title of the property sued for having been proved to be in the plaintiff, in law the jury were bound to find for the plaintiff the value of the whole property sued for.
    2. There was not such proof of the defendant’s lien claimed under the Act of the General Assembly, passed A. D. 1866, entitled “ An Act to secure advances for agricultural purposes,” as would, in law, entitle the defendant to the benefit of such lien under said Act.
    
      Duncan & Cleveland, for appellants.
    
      Bolo & Carlisle, contra.
    Jan. 28, 1875.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Wright, A. J.

There were no exceptions taken to the charge of the Judge, but only to the verdict of the jury; therefore no question of law was raised by the grounds of appeal.

In such a case this Court will not interfere.—Floyd, Adm’r, vs. Abney, 1 S. C., 114.

The motion must be dismissed.

Moses, C. J.,-and Willard, A. J., concurred.