inflexible rule in South Carolina

1960Trainmen, 216 S. C. 233, 57 S. E. (2d) 411, 414 , Mr. Justice Oxner, speaking for a unanimous court, said: “We have never undertaken to lay down an inflexible rule applicable to every situation.

1957In McLaughlin v. Brotherhood oj Railroad Trainmen, supra, we said: “The nature of the insurance involved, whether the insured is any longer an insurable risk, whether similar insurance in another reputable company is available, and various other factors must be considered. * * * The dominant idea in formulating a rule of damages in any case should be the reimbursement of the insured for the actual loss sustained by him, and the measure of recovery which adheres most closely to that idea is the one that should be adopted.” *468 The leading case on this question is Pack v. Metropolitan Life Insu

1960On the contrary, we have emphasized ‘that the facts of each case are necessarily of potent influence in determining the measure of damages.’ Rogers v. Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co., 182 S. C. 51, 188 S. E. 432, 434 ; Hardee v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co., 215 S. C. 1, 53 S. E. (2d) 861 .

1950On the contrary, we have emphasized “that the facts of each case are necessarily of potent influence in determining the measure of damages.” Rogers v. Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co., 182 S. C. 51, 188 S. E. 432, 434 ; Hardee v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co., 215 S. C. 1, 53 S. E. (2d) 861 .

1960On the contrary, we have emphasized ‘that the facts of each case are necessarily of potent influence in determining the measure of damages.’ Rogers v. Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co., 182 S. C. 51, 188 S. E. 432, 434 ; Hardee v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co., 215 S. C. 1, 53 S. E. (2d) 861 .

1950On the contrary, we have emphasized “that the facts of each case are necessarily of potent influence in determining the measure of damages.” Rogers v. Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co., 182 S. C. 51, 188 S. E. 432, 434 ; Hardee v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co., 215 S. C. 1, 53 S. E. (2d) 861 .

1939The only inflexible rule is that the trustee shall not make a profit out of the balance in his hands, and that he shall not be charged with loss except for neglect of duty.’ And in Nicholson v. Whitlock, 57 S. C., 36, 35 S. E., 412 , 414: The principle is well established that it is a matter of discretion with the Court, in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, whether it will allow interest against the administrator.’ See also Dixon v. Hunter' s Distributees, 3 Hill, 204 ; Pettus v. Clawson, 4 Rich.

1938The only inflexible rule is that the trustee shall not make a profit out of the balance in his hands, and that he shall not be charged with loss except for neglect of duty.” And in Nicholson v. Whitlock, 57 S. C., 36, 35 S. E., 412 , 414: *406 “The principle is well established that it is a matter of discretion with the Court, in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, whether it will allow interest against the administrator.” See also Dixon v. Hunter’s Distributees, 3 Hill, 204 ; Pettus v. Clawson, 4 Rich.

1939Eq, 92; Tompkins v. Tompkins, 18 S. C., 1; Glenn v. Worthy, 169 S. C, 263, 168 S. E., 705 .” Beacham v. Ross et al., 187 S. C., 398, 197 S. E., 369, 373 .

1938Eq., 92 ; Tompkins v. Tompkins, 18 S. C., 1; Glenn v. Worthy, 169 S. C., 263, 168 S. E., 705 .

1966We have in some cases supplied the lack of express findings by implication from the general findings, Cole v. State Highway Department, 190 S. C. 142, 2 S. E. (2d) 490 ; and have refused to consider the question in the absence of an objection seasonably made, Long Motor Lines.

1957In McLaughlin v. Brotherhood oj Railroad Trainmen, supra, we said: “The nature of the insurance involved, whether the insured is any longer an insurable risk, whether similar insurance in another reputable company is available, and various other factors must be considered. * * * The dominant idea in formulating a rule of damages in any case should be the reimbursement of the insured for the actual loss sustained by him, and the measure of recovery which adheres most closely to that idea is the one that should be adopted.” *468 The leading case on this question is Pack v. Metropolitan Life Insu

1954Cf. Ainscow v. Alexander, 1944, 28 Del.

1939Eq, 92; Tompkins v. Tompkins, 18 S. C., 1; Glenn v. Worthy, 169 S. C, 263, 168 S. E., 705 .” Beacham v. Ross et al., 187 S. C., 398, 197 S. E., 369, 373 .

1918Tucker v. Richards, 58 S. C. 27, 36 S. E. 3 .