Jenkins v. Bennett

Citations

• 40 S.C. 393
• 18 S.E. 929
• 1894 S.C. LEXIS 146

Syllabus

<p>1. Actios Ex Delicto — Survival.—A complaint which alleges a building contract between plainliif and defendants by defendants’ acceptance of plaintiff’s bid,, and that plaintiff was always ready to perform said contract, but that defendants hindered and prevented plaintiff from performing the same, to his damage, by the loss of direct profits, in the sum of five thousand dollars, states a cause of action ex delicto, without resulting gain or advantage to defendants; and, therefore, on the death of one of the defendants, the action could not be revived against the estate.</p> <p>2. Inspection of Papers. — Before an order is passed requiring a party to permit an inspection of papers in his possession by the adverse party, facts must be shown to enable the court to determine that its discretionary power should be exercised, and that there is a necessity for invoking the power of the court.</p> <p>3. Ibid. — In action for damages for hindering plaintiff from carrying out his building contract with defendants, the plaintiif is not entitled to demand of defendants an inspection of the contract made by them with a third person under which the building was constructed.</p> <p>4. Ibid. — Costs.—In reversing an order, the provision as to costs is reversed also; nor should costs be allowed on a motion to require an inspection of papers, when it does not appear that such inspection had ever been refused.</p> <p>5. Ibid. — Attachment.—An order requiring an inspection of papers should not provide for an attachment in case of refusal. Such harsh remedy should be enforced under rule to show cause after refusal.</p>