Case Name: GALLIVAN v. PHŒNIX FIRE INS. CO.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1920-01-26
Citations: 113 S.C. 181
Docket Number: 10356
Parties: GALLIVAN v. PHŒNIX FIRE INS. CO.
Judges: Before Mauldin, J., Greenville, Summer term, 1919.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 113
Pages: 181–182

Head Matter:
10356
GALLIVAN v. PHŒNIX FIRE INS. CO.
(101 S. E. 927.)
1. Refusal to Direct a Verdict por Defendant.- — -Under all the evidence in this ease, the Judge was clearly right in submitting the issues to the jury for their determination.
2. Refusal to Grant a New Trial Upon the Ground That the Verdict of the Jury Was Not Sustained by the Evidence. — There was ample evidence to sustain the verdict.
3. Judge's Charge. — The Judge’s charge was lucid, fair and full.
Before Mauldin, J., Greenville, Summer term, 1919.
Affirmed.
Action by J. F. Gallivan against the Phoenix Fire Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Mr. K. K. T ozones, for appellant
(no citations).
Mr. L. K. Clyde and Messrs. Cothran, Dean & Cothran, for respondent. Mr. Clyde
cites: As to waiver: 57 S. C. 370; 94 S. C. 299; 97 S. C. 275; Code of Daws (1912), secs. 2711-2212; Huestiss v. Ins. Co., 31, 102 S. C. 227; 102 S. C. 313; 104 S. C. 403.
January 26, 1920.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
This was an action for recovery of a policy of fire insurance, and was tried at the July term of Court, 1919, for Greenville county, before Judge Mauldin, and a jury, resulting in a verdict in favor of plaintiff. After entry of judgment, defendant appeals, and by eight exceptions alleges error and raises the following questions: Error in the Circuit Judge in not directing a verdict for the defendant, upon the evidence and provisions of the policy of insurance, and not sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict, and exceptions to the Judge's charge to the jury.
We see no errors on the part of his Honor as made by the exceptions. Under all the evidence in the case he was clearly right in submitting the issues to the jury, as he did, for their determination, and there is ample evidence to sustain their verdict, and there was no error in his charge, whereby the appellant was prejudiced. His charge was lucid, fair, and full.
All exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.