Gregory-Conder Mule Co. v. Roddey

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Gregory-Conder Mule Co. v. Roddey

78 S.E. 876, 98 S.C. 347, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 1

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 24, 1913

Docket8615

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 S.E. 876 (Gregory-Conder Mule Co. v. Roddey) 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

Gregory-Conder Mule Co. v. Roddey, 78 S.E. 876, 98 S.C. 347, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 1 (S.C. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

This.is an action on account for a set of furniture sold to Mr. Roddey b)r Mr. H. A. Taylor. The plaintiff claimed that the account was assigned to it, and that no part thereof had been paid. The defendant, Roddey, claimed that the account had been paid by certain commissions, to which he was entitled on a sale of an automobile by the plaintiff to Taylor. The presiding Judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff, from which defendant appealed.

*348 There was much conflict of testimony as to whether the account was assigned or not and as to the terms of the contract between the plaintiff and Taylor in the sale of the auto-mobile. These questions ought to' have been submitted to the jury. There are four exceptions, but the above statement disposes of all that are necessary to a determination of _ this case. This Court might make a statement of the facts and their consequences at the various times; and, as they were affected by the change in the relations of the parties, it would be manifestly unfair to- do so-, as it might raise questions that the parties have not seen fit to- raise, and might practically determine the facts, and this Court should do neither.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Mr. Justice Gage was not on the bench when this case was decided.

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.

This.is an action on account for a set of furniture sold to Mr. Roddey b)r Mr. H. A. Taylor. The plaintiff claimed that the account was assigned to it, and that no part thereof had been paid. The defendant, Roddey, claimed that the account had been paid by certain commissions, to which he was entitled on a sale of an automobile by the plaintiff to Taylor. The presiding Judge directed a verdict for the plaintiff, from which defendant appealed.

*348 There was much conflict of testimony as to whether the account was assigned or not and as to the terms of the contract between the plaintiff and Taylor in the sale of the auto-mobile. These questions ought to' have been submitted to the jury. There are four exceptions, but the above statement disposes of all that are necessary to a determination of _ this case. This Court might make a statement of the facts and their consequences at the various times; and, as they were affected by the change in the relations of the parties, it would be manifestly unfair to- do so-, as it might raise questions that the parties have not seen fit to- raise, and might practically determine the facts, and this Court should do neither.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Mr. Justice Gage was not on the bench when this case was decided.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 S.E. 876, 98 S.C. 347, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gregory-conder-mule-co-v-roddey-sc-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack