J. B. Colt Co. v. Finley

Supreme Court of South Carolina

J. B. Colt Co. v. Finley

126 S.E. 47, 130 S.C. 424, 1925 S.C. LEXIS 12

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJanuary 5, 1925

Docket11652

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 126 S.E. 47 (J. B. Colt Co. v. Finley) 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

J. B. Colt Co. v. Finley, 126 S.E. 47, 130 S.C. 424, 1925 S.C. LEXIS 12 (S.C. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

This case is practically “on all fours” with the case of Colt Co. v. Britt (S. C.), 123 S. E., 845, and is controlled by the decision in that case.

The only observable difference between the two. cases is that in the Britt Case evidence of a collateral contract for installation was excluded, while here the contract was offered in evidence by the plaintiff. The contract is not connected up with the plaintiff in any way; in fact it is not connected up with any one, as it shows upon its face that it could not be a valid contract until accepted by the contractor who was to undertake the installation. The motion of the plaintiff for a directed verdict should have been granted.

The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed, and that the case be remanded to that Court for the purpose of entering judgment in favor of the plaintiff under Rule 27.

Messrs. Justices Watts, Eraser and Marion concur. Mr. Chief Justice Gary did not participate.

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.

This case is practically “on all fours” with the case of Colt Co. v. Britt (S. C.), 123 S. E., 845, and is controlled by the decision in that case.

The only observable difference between the two. cases is that in the Britt Case evidence of a collateral contract for installation was excluded, while here the contract was offered in evidence by the plaintiff. The contract is not connected up with the plaintiff in any way; in fact it is not connected up with any one, as it shows upon its face that it could not be a valid contract until accepted by the contractor who was to undertake the installation. The motion of the plaintiff for a directed verdict should have been granted.

The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed, and that the case be remanded to that Court for the purpose of entering judgment in favor of the plaintiff under Rule 27.

Messrs. Justices Watts, Eraser and Marion concur. Mr. Chief Justice Gary did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 S.E. 47, 130 S.C. 424, 1925 S.C. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-b-colt-co-v-finley-sc-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack