Finley v. Cudd

Citations

• 42 S.C. 121
• 20 S.E. 32
• 1894 S.C. LEXIS 29

Syllabus

<p>1. Irrelevant Testimony — -New Trial. — The admission of irrelevant testimony is not ordinarily a ground for new trial; but where the trial judge, in action of claim and delivery, permitted testimony to be received showing plaintiff’s indebtedness to defendant in mitigation of damages, and there was a verdict for defendant, the admission of such irrelevant testimony may have misled the jury, and furnishes sufficient ground for new trial.</p> <p>2. An Exception which quotes a portion of the judge’s charge, and alleges that it was erroneous, is bad form, and might be disregarded, but considered in this case as to the point that was probably intended to be raised thereby.</p> <p>3. Claim and Delivery — Value.—In action of claim and delivery for horses seized by defendant under mortgage, if the plaintiff be entitled to recovery because the mortgage debt was not yet due, the animals themselves should be valued, and not the value of their use from the day of seizure until the maturity of the mortgage.</p> <p>4. Ibid. — Form oe Verdict. — Where defendant retains possession of chattels sued for in action of claim and delivery, a verdict for defendant is sufficient without any alternative finding fixing the value of the chattels. Cases reviewed.</p>