Case Name: YORK v. CHARLES
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1925-05-26
Citations: 132 S.C. 230
Docket Number: 11773
Parties: YORK v. CHARLES
Judges: Mr. Chiee Justice Gary concurs.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 132
Pages: 230–235

Head Matter:
11773
YORK v. CHARLES
(128 S. E., 29)
Messrs. Jos. B. Leach and H. P. Burbage for appellant.
Messrs. Nettles & Oxner, for respondent,
May 26, 1925.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
"Action for damages to plaintiff's automobile, commenced in Greenville County Court on March 12, 1923, by E. C. York against Mrs. Eileen Hunt Charles, the alleged damages growing out of a collision between a public service car owned and operated by plaintiff and a car owned by defendant; said collision having occurred on a bridge on the Augusta road, near the City of Greenville. Defendant answered and also set up a counterclaim alleging damages to her oar and asking judgment against the plaintiff. The case was tried before Judge M. F. Ansel and a jury at the December term, 1923, resulting in a verdict for the defendant. Motion for new trial by plaintiff made and refused. Plaintiff appeals on various exceptions, and defendant moves to sustain judgment entered on the verdict on the grounds hereinafter set forth."
Exception IV is overruled as being too general, and for the reason there was sufficient evidence to carry the case to the jury, and his Honor committed no error.
Exception II is overruled as the testimony was not objected to. When given later, objection was made, but no ruling was made by his Honor, and no request for a ruling was made.
Exception III is overruled. It was part'of res gestae under the authorities of Magill v. Southern Railway, 95 S. C., 307; 78 S. E., 1033. Williams v. Southern Railway Co., 68 S. C., 369; 47 S. E., 706. Shelton v. Southern Railway Company, 86 S. C., 102; 67 S. E., 899; and Charleston Livestock Co. v. Collins, 79 S. C., 383; 60 S. E., 944.
All exceptions are overuled, and judgment affirmed.
Mr. Chiee Justice Gary concurs.
Messrs. Justices Cothran and Marion concur in result.