Case ID: sc_107/html/0334-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Watts.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

9703
    JAMES v. VICTOR MFG. CO.
    (92 S. E. 1045.)
    1. Trial- — Nonsuit—Condition or Evidence. — There being sufficient evidence to carry the case to the jury on the issues, granting nonsuit was error.
    2. Costs — On Appeal — Compliance With Rules. — Though there is a reversal, appellant’s attorneys, not conforming to the rules in manner of preparation of case for appeal, will not be allowed any costs for appeal.
    Before Mauedin, J., Spartanburg,
    January, 1917.
    Reversed.
    
      Action by Samuel B. James against the Victor Manufacturing Company. Nonsuit was granted, and plaintiff appeals.
    
      Messrs. Wyche & Poster, H. C. Miller and B. P. Perry, Jr., for appellant. Messrs. Miller & Perry
    
    cite: As to wilfulness: 88 S. C. 47; 88 S. C. IS; 91 S. C. 477; 88 S. C. 7; 98 S. C. 96. Measure of damages: 40 Cyc. 601; 57 N. E. .719; 56 R. R. A. 899; 14 Am. St. Rep. 319; 49 S. C. 95; 65 S. E. 361; 93 S. C. 420. Trespass: 93 S. C. 426; 66 S. E. 59. Reasonable use of stream: 40 Am. Rep. 194; 56 E. R. A. 899; 57 Fed. 1000; 14 L. R. A. 329; 108 U. S. 317; 50 E. R. A. 564; 77 Am. St. Rep. 335.
    
      Messrs. Haynsworth & Haynsworth and Jno. Gary Bvans, for respondent,
    cite: As to no evidence to show damage: 96 S. C. 342. Surface drainage: 110 Mass. 216, 219; 14 Am. Rep. 592; 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 586; 24 E. R. A. 572. Reasonable me of stream: 60 S. C. 254; 79 S. C. 351; 96 S. C. 420.
    June 29, 1917.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an action by plaintiff against the defendant for damages, actual and punitive, and for injunction, for alleged injuries to plaintiff’s property by emptying by the defendant of the sewage and other deleterious matter from its mill into an adjacent branch that flowed through the lands of plaintiff contaminating and polluting the waters, etc. After issue joined the case was tried before Judge Mauldin, and a jury at the January term of the Court, 1917, for Spartan-burg county.

At the close of plaintiff’s testimony a motion for a non-suit was made by the defendant, which motion was granted by the Court. After entry of judgment plaintiff appealed, and by four exceptions imputes error on the part of his Honor. The exceptions must be sustained. There was sufficient evidence to carry the case to the jury, both as to actual damages and wilfulness, and wantonness under the case of Lowe v. Ottaray Mills, 93 S. C. 420, 77 S. E. 135, and that defendant had notice of the complaint of the plaintiff as to his alleged wrongs and injuries and continued the alleged wrongs after notice in contravention of plaintiff’s rights.

The order of nonsuit appealed from must be reversed, but appellant’s attorneys have not conformed to the rules of this Court in the manner of preparation of case for appeal; therefore the appellant’s attorneys will not be allowed any costs for appeal.

Order appealed from reversed.