Gough v. Texas Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Gough v. Texas Co.

108 S.E. 153, 116 S.C. 380, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 118

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedAugust 1, 1921

Docket10684

StatusPublished

This text of 108 S.E. 153 (Gough v. Texas Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gough v. Texas Co., 108 S.E. 153, 116 S.C. 380, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 118 (S.C. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

*381 Prior to July 1, 1920, the plaintiff had been the agent of the defendant company at Chester, S. C. On June 30, 1920, the defendant sent to Chester Mr. Dority, its assistant superintendent, to check up the plaintiff’s business and to install Mr. McGuire, the new agent. The plaintiff was working under a written contract that provided' for sales on commissions. The contract provided that on the termination of the agency all commissions on uncollected accounts should be forfeited. When Mr. Dority completed the settlement he told Mr. Gough, the plaintiff, that he would allow him commissions on all claims he collected prior to July 15 th, and asked him to take the new agent around with him, and introduce him to the customers. The plaintiff agreed to continue his collections and carry the new agent, but said 15 days is not enough time in which to collect $4,000, in July, and claimed 30 days instead. It is not denied that the plaintiff, at his own expense of travel, in his own machine, did make the collections. The defendant tendered to the plaintiff pay for collections made prior to July 15th, but refused to pay commissions on claim's that he collected after that day, and before the end of July. Mr. Dority, the assistant superintendent, states that he did not protest against the extension to 30 days, instead of -15, as he said it would have done no good to protest. At the close of the testimony the defendant moved for a directed verdict on the ground that there was no evidence of a waiver of the offered extension of 15 days. This motion was refused.

There are several exceptions, but they raise but one • question. The motion was properly refused. There is no question but that the written contract was waived- The only question is, Was it waived for 1'5 or 30 days? There was abundant evidence of a 30-day waiver to carry the case to the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

*381 Prior to July 1, 1920, the plaintiff had been the agent of the defendant company at Chester, S. C. On June 30, 1920, the defendant sent to Chester Mr. Dority, its assistant superintendent, to check up the plaintiff’s business and to install Mr. McGuire, the new agent. The plaintiff was working under a written contract that provided' for sales on commissions. The contract provided that on the termination of the agency all commissions on uncollected accounts should be forfeited. When Mr. Dority completed the settlement he told Mr. Gough, the plaintiff, that he would allow him commissions on all claims he collected prior to July 15 th, and asked him to take the new agent around with him, and introduce him to the customers. The plaintiff agreed to continue his collections and carry the new agent, but said 15 days is not enough time in which to collect $4,000, in July, and claimed 30 days instead. It is not denied that the plaintiff, at his own expense of travel, in his own machine, did make the collections. The defendant tendered to the plaintiff pay for collections made prior to July 15th, but refused to pay commissions on claim's that he collected after that day, and before the end of July. Mr. Dority, the assistant superintendent, states that he did not protest against the extension to 30 days, instead of -15, as he said it would have done no good to protest. At the close of the testimony the defendant moved for a directed verdict on the ground that there was no evidence of a waiver of the offered extension of 15 days. This motion was refused.

There are several exceptions, but they raise but one • question. The motion was properly refused. There is no question but that the written contract was waived- The only question is, Was it waived for 1'5 or 30 days? There was abundant evidence of a 30-day waiver to carry the case to the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 S.E. 153, 116 S.C. 380, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gough-v-texas-co-sc-1921.