Case Name: UNITED STATES CASUALTY CO. v. CONSOLIDATED AUTO CO.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1919-01-21
Citations: 111 S.C. 355
Docket Number: 10126
Parties: UNITED STATES CASUALTY CO. v. CONSOLIDATED AUTO CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 111
Pages: 355–356

Head Matter:
10126
UNITED STATES CASUALTY CO. v. CONSOLIDATED AUTO CO.
(98 S. E. 133.)
Insurance — Action for Premiums — Directed Verdict. — In action for insurance premiums, the sole question being payment as alleged by defendant, verdict was properly directed for plaintiff, where the only reasonable inference to be drawn from all the testimony was that there had been no payment.
Before Townsend, J., Richland, Summer term, 1918.
.Affirmed.
Action by the United States Casualty Company against the Consolidated Auto Company. Directed verdict for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Messrs. Nelson & Gettys, for appellant,
cite: As to an agent’s authority to accept payment for his principal in some other medium than money: 107 S. C. 537; Story on Agency, sec. 181; Cooley’s Briefs on Ins. 471-2.
Mr. R. B. Herbert, for respondent,
cites: As to what constitutes payment: 30 Cyc. 1181; 9th Richardson, 3d S. C. Reprint., vol. XVII.
January 21, 1919.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
This was a suit for $113.84, the amount of two insurance premiums on policies issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. The case was tried before Judge Townsend, and a jury, at the May term of Court, 1918, for Richland county. The defendant by its answer alleged payment, and the sole question involved in the case was: Was there any evidence of payment ? At the close of the testimony in the case, his Honor, on motion of plaintiff, directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, on the ground that defendant had failed to show payment. After entry of judgment, defendant appealed, and by exception challenges the correctness of his Honor in directing the verdict.
An examination of all the testimony in the case convinces us that the only reasonable inference to be drawn was that there was no payment, and his Honor was correct in directing a verdict for the.plaintiff.
Exception overruled.
Judgment affirmed.