Case Name: STOKES ET AL. v. LIVERPOOL & LONDON & GLOBE INS. CO.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1927-10-21
Citations: 141 S.C. 417
Docket Number: 12292
Parties: STOKES ET AL. v. LIVERPOOL & LONDON & GLOBE INS. CO.
Judges: Messrs. Justices Brease and Stabeer concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 141
Pages: 417–428

Head Matter:
12292
STOKES ET AL. v. LIVERPOOL & LONDON & GLOBE INS. CO.
(139 S. E., 846)
Messrs. Jas. H. Powles and Dargon & Paulling, for appellants,
Messrs. Miller, Lawson & Stokes and J. Monroe Spears, for respondent,
October 21, 1927.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chiee Justice Watts.
The following statement appears in the "case for appeal" before this Court:
"This action was commenced in June, 1922, by a service of a summons and complaint and was tried at the fall term of Court at Darlington in 1923 before the late Hon. N. G. Evans, special Judge, and a jury, and resulted in a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiffs appealed to this Court and in opinions No. 11683, filed February 12, 1925, a new trial was ordered. These opinions are reported in 126 S. E., commencing at page 649. The new trial was had on November 2, 1925, before Hon. J. K. Henry, presiding Judge, and a jury, and resulted in a directed verdict for plaintiffs for $4,000 and interest from January 23, 1922, and upon this verdict judgment was entered. From this judgment, notice of intention to appeal was served by the defendant.
"The printed case in the former appeal is hereby made a part of this appeal."
There are four exceptions. Exception 2 was abondoned at the hearing in this Court. The issues raised by the exceptions are:
"III. Was it error to reject evidence that a claim and delivery proceeding affecting the insured property had been commenced ?
"IV. Was it error to reject testimony that the policy was written for a lump premium and that the rate was the same on all the property covered ?"
As to the first exception: It is no longer a question in this case in view of the decision of this Court in the former appeal, and in view of what occurred at the trial. Mr. Eowles conceded that as a defense this question was eliminated. This exception is overruled.
As to the third exception: There is no doubt under the evidence, and no other conclusion could be drawn, but that it was partnership property, and a judgment against a partner individually, in which the other partner is not joined, is not valid as to partnership property. This the Court held in its former opinion in this case, and under the testimony in this case and under all of the authorities, a partnership existed between the respondents as to the property involved here; no other inference could be drawn under the evidence in the case.
There is no merit in The fourth exception.
All exceptions are overruled as being without merit, and no error on the part of his Honor as complained of, and judgment affirmed.
Messrs. Justices Brease and Stabeer concur.
Mr. Justice Carter concurs in result.