Emory v. Hazard Powder Co.

Citations

• 22 S.C. 476
• 1885 S.C. LEXIS 44

Syllabus

<p>1. Causes of action and remedies distinguished.</p> <p>2. The insertion of two or more demands for relief in a complaint is not a misjoinder. When therefore a complaint demanded damages for a nuisance, and an injunction to restrain it, the Circuit judge committed no error in refusing to require the plaintiff to elect between these two remedies.</p> <p>3. The admission of testimony which was- introduced without objection cannot be made a ground of exception.</p> <p>4. Under the allegations of a complaint that the life of plaintiff and her family were in danger from the explosion of defendant’s powder magazine near by, evidence in plaintiff's behalf as to the construction and management of the magazine is competent and pertinent.</p> <p>5. A matter may be a nuisance although it injuriously affects only one household. The judge therefore properly refused to charge “that if the jur-y find that the site of the powder magazine is such as to cause danger to the fewest persons, at the same time affording an accessible depot of supply, they must find for the defendant.”</p> <p>6. There is no error in refusing a request to charge where the matter so requested is substantially stated in the general chai-ge.</p> <p>7. The complaint made no allegation that defendant’s magazine or powder were carelessly kept, but did allege that the magazine endangered the life of plaintiff and her family: Held, that the judge did not err in refusing to charge that the jury must consider the case as if the powder was kept with the greatest discretion and security.</p> <p>8. In a law case questions of fact cannot be reviewed by this court.</p> <p>9. This court declined to declare error in a charge which authorized the jury to find punitive damages where the only objections raised to such charge were that there was no testimony in the case to which it was applicable, and that its tendency was to inflame the minds of the jury against the defendant.</p>