Duckett v. Pool

Citations

• 33 S.C. 238
• 11 S.E. 689
• 1890 S.C. LEXIS 120

Syllabus

<p>1. Respondent is not entitled to urge in this court, in support of an order of non-suit, a ground which was overruled by the Circuit Judge, no notice having been given that it would be here argued.</p> <p>2. There being some evidence tending to establish one of the issues in the ease necessary to plaintiff’s recovery, there was no error in refusing a non-suit on that issue.</p> <p>3. In action to recover damages for enticing away a servant of the plaintiff, there was evidence tending to show that the servant was in plaintiff’s employment, and that defendant knew it and inquired whether the contract of employment was in writing; and that defendant sent his wagon and moved the servant to his own place. In granting a non-suit upon the ground that there was no evidence that defenant had enticed the? servant away, there was error. Whether the evidence was sufficient was a question for the jury.</p> <p>4. A parol contract between a landlord and a laborer made in November, 1888, for the whole of the year 1889, is within the statute of frauds, as it is not to be performed within a year; but while the servant remained in his master's service, one who entices him away is liable to the master in an action for damages, notwithstanding the statute of frauds ; and it was for the jury to say whether the servant would have performed his verbal promise if the defendant had not interfered.</p>