Gray v. Beaufort County Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Gray v. Beaufort County Lumber Co.

128 S.E. 167, 132 S.C. 326, 1925 S.C. LEXIS 183

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 1, 1925

Docket11778

StatusPublished

This text of 128 S.E. 167 (Gray v. Beaufort County Lumber 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

Gray v. Beaufort County Lumber Co., 128 S.E. 167, 132 S.C. 326, 1925 S.C. LEXIS 183 (S.C. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

The plaintiff bought a tract of land, on which was standing timber purchased by the defendant. When the defendant cut his timber, there was injury done to the pasture fence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought this action, alleging negligence, and willful injury to’ the fence and land. In its answer the defendant denied negligence and willfulness, and set up that it had agreed to repair the injury, but had been prevented from doing so by the plaintiff. At the close of the evidence the defendant moved for a direction of a verdict for the defendant. This motion was granted, on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence or willfulness.

This was error, in that it overlooked the contract to repair the damage done to the land and the plea that the performance of its contract had been prevented by the plaintiff. This presented a question for the jury.

The judgment appealed from is reversed and a new trial ordered.

Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices Watts and Marion concur.

Note. The foregoing opinion was written by the late Mr. Justice Fraser, and is adopted as the judgment of the Court; the opinion pro forma being presented by me.

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 Cothran.

The plaintiff bought a tract of land, on which was standing timber purchased by the defendant. When the defendant cut his timber, there was injury done to the pasture fence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought this action, alleging negligence, and willful injury to’ the fence and land. In its answer the defendant denied negligence and willfulness, and set up that it had agreed to repair the injury, but had been prevented from doing so by the plaintiff. At the close of the evidence the defendant moved for a direction of a verdict for the defendant. This motion was granted, on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence or willfulness.

This was error, in that it overlooked the contract to repair the damage done to the land and the plea that the performance of its contract had been prevented by the plaintiff. This presented a question for the jury.

The judgment appealed from is reversed and a new trial ordered.

Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices Watts and Marion concur.

Note. The foregoing opinion was written by the late Mr. Justice Fraser, and is adopted as the judgment of the Court; the opinion pro forma being presented by me.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 S.E. 167, 132 S.C. 326, 1925 S.C. LEXIS 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-beaufort-county-lumber-co-sc-1925.