Riggs v. Wilson

Citations

• 30 S.C. 172
• 8 S.E. 848
• 1889 S.C. LEXIS 85

Syllabus

<p>1. In a trial justice’s court, in action for recovery of personal property, the defendant plead failure of consideration through misrepresentation, fraud, and duress, without a statement of the facts upon which this defence was based. Held, that in this inferior court a demurrer alleging that the facts stated did not constitute a defence, was properly overruled.</p> <p>2. Where irrelevant testimony is received against objection, a new trial will not be granted therefor, where it could not have affected the verdict.</p> <p>3. Where the transaction in question — -an ox trade — grew out of a former transaction- — a mule trade — and was a substitute therefor, evidence as to the mule trade was relevant.</p> <p>4. Where the defence was that the money paid was full price.for the ox, and that the ox was taken as the only way to get back the money paid on the mule, for -which the ox was substituted, the trial justice properly refused to charge the jury that defendant could not sustain his defence of duress without offering to return the ox, or that his subsequent silence was a ratification.</p> <p>5. The trial justice properly refused to charge that the facts established neither fraud nor duress, and the verdict must he for plaintiff. These matters were for the jury.</p> <p>6. Where new trial was refused hy the trial justice on the facts, and his ruling was sustained by the Circuit Judge, this court cannot interfere.</p>