Public-domain · open source

154 S.C. 53

151 S.E 105

Buffkin v. Pridgen

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided January 3, 1930

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1930-01-03

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently August 1960

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1930-01-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Stabler.

¶2 This is an action for damages on account of certain slanderous words alleged to have been spoken by the defendant of and concerning the plaintiff, Inez Buff-kin. The defendant demurred to the complaint, on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient, in several particulars named, to constitute a cause of action, and, from an adverse holding by his Honor, Judge Shipp, he appeals and brings error.

¶3 This Court is satisfied, from a careful reading of the complaint, that a cause of action is stated. The words alleged to have been tittered and published by the defendant concerning the plaintiff impute to her a want of chastity and such words are deemed actionable, without proof of special damage. Freeman v. Price, 2 Bailey, 115. Also it is sufficiently shown from the allegations of the complaint that the plaintiff is a female, and that Seymour Tittle, the other party alleged to- have been named by the defendant, is a male person.

¶4 The order appealed from is affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Watts and Messrs. Justices Cothran, BlEase and Carter, concur.

Download

Copy

Embed on your site

Hover to preview · click to copy the code

Search Wikipedia →

Case posture

Posture: Before Shipp, J., Horry, July, 1928. Affirmed.Action by Inez Buffkin, by her guardian ad litem , C.A. Buffkin, against M.S. Pridgen. From an order overruling demurrer to complaint, defendant appeals. The complaint referred to in the opinion is as follows: "(1) That plaintiff and defendant are both residents of the county and state aforesaid. "(2) That on or about August 15, 1926, and at divers and other times before and since said date, the defendant stated to one Everett Phillips and to divers other persons, of and concerning the plaintiff, that `it is a provable fact that Inez Buffin and Seymour Little were caught in the act, with Seymour Little lying on her in Dan Barnhill's cornfield,' or words having that general purport and effect. "(3) That by said language the defendant conveyed, and intended to convey, to the said Everett Phillips and to others with whom he talked, the impression that the plaintiff, a minor of the age of 15 years, was lewd and unchaste, and had engaged in an act or acts of sexual intercourse. "(4) That the above quoted language and the impression conveyed thereby were false, and were uttered by the defendant willfully, maliciously, wantonly, and in a reckless disregard of the rights of the plaintiff. "(5) That the defendant, by uttering the above-quoted language, has willfully, maliciously, and falsely reflected upon the reputation of the plaintiff for chastity, and has held her up to the scorn and contempt of those with whom she associates. "(6) That, by reason of the aforesaid willful and malicious action of the defendant, the plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $5,000. "(7) That prior to the commencement of this action the plaintiff, being a minor of the age of 15 years, has had her father, one C.A. Buffkin, duly appointed as guardian ad litem for the purpose of bringing this action. "Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment against defendant in amount of $5,000.00, the costs of this action, and other and further relief."

Source: CourtListener

Court

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Parallel citations

151 S.E 105