-
I think that the petition should be granted. The decision, in my opinion, is wrong in principle and subversive of the doctrine thoroughly established by the decisions of this Court and all others which have considered the question. It "reaps the bearded grain in a breath." Gwynn v. Tel. Co.,
69 S.C. 434 ;48 S.E., 460 ; 67 L.R.A., 111; 104 Am. St. Rep., 819. Funderburgv. R. Co.,81 S.C. 141 ;61 S.E., 1075 ; 21 L.R.A. (N.S.), 868. Henry v. R. Co.,93 S.C. 125 ;75 S.E., 1018 .Walker v. Glenn,124 S.C. 501 ;117 S.E., 723 . Fort v.R. Co.,64 S.C. 423 ;42 S.E., 196 . State v. Doig, 2 Rich., 182. State v. Alexander, 14 Rich., 253. State v. Toney,15 S.C. 412 . Alvinger v. Co.,29 S.C. 265 ; *Page 3937 S.E., 493 ; 13 Am. St. Rep., 716. Kibler v. R. Co.,62 S.C. 270 ;40 S.E., 556 — all of which, without exception or reservation, declare, in the language substantially of the Henry case:"An act based on the belief that it was legal and done for the sole purpose of protecting actor's right, will not subject actor to punitive or vindictive damages."
Document Info
Docket Number: 12432
Citation Numbers: 143 S.E. 179, 145 S.C. 380, 143 S.E. 119
Judges: <italic>Per Curiam.</italic>
Filed Date: 4/18/1928
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023