Before Sease, J., Greenwood, July, 1920. Action by E. L. Pinson against M. G. Bowles and Mrs. M. E. Bowles on a promissory note. From judgment for plaintiff the defendants appeal. cite: Defendants were entitled to open and reply: 35 S. C. 165; 50 S. C. 25; 63 S. C. 291; 92 S. C. 122.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 1953
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶2*48
This is an action on a note. Defense, failure of consideration. -Cause tried before Judge Sease and a jury at the April term of Court, 1920, for Greenwood County, and resulted in a verdict in favor of- plaintiff for amount sued for.
¶3
Exceptions, six in number, allege error on the part of his ITonor.
¶4
1, 2
Exception 1 alleges on the part of his Honor in not allowing defendant to open and reply. This exception is overruled. The defendant was not prejudiced by such ruling, and at the tim[e of the? ruling no suggestion or intimation was given to* the Court that the defendant would be prejudiced by; such ruling, and by standing by and permitting the plaintiff to offer testimony without claiming the right at the proper time the defendant waived it, but later1 his Honor gave the defendant the right to reply in argument if they desired it. Ths certanly cured the error, if any.
¶5
3
Exceptions 2, 3, 4 and 5 allege error in his Honor’s charge. Taking the charge as a whole, the defendants were not prejudced,'and the charge as a whole was correct, applicable to the facts testified to, and the law of the case.
¶6
Exception 6 alleges error in allowing Ellis to testify as to certain facts. This was not prejudicial; the evidence was competent to show the situation at that time.
¶7
All exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.
Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Eraser, concur.
