McManus v. Midland Valley Lumber Co.

E.D. South Carolina

McManus v. Midland Valley Lumber Co.

232 F. Supp. 885, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6575

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. South Carolina

DecidedAugust 15, 1964

DocketCiv. A. No. 8239

StatusPublished

This text of 232 F. Supp. 885 (McManus v. Midland Valley Lumber Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McManus v. Midland Valley Lumber Co., 232 F. Supp. 885, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6575 (southcarolinaed 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

HEMPHILL, Chief Judge.

This action, heard by the Court without a jury, at Charleston, South Carolina, August 4, 1964, joins issues on a claim for actual damages arising out of claimed breach of contract between the parties. After taking the testimony and hearing arguments of counsel, (trial briefs being before me and considered) I have determined the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. NALLEY LUMBER CO., INC., a South Carolina Corporation, whose President was J. Larry Nalley was, until devastated by fire in March of 1963, engaged in sawing hardwood logs into lumber at its plant at or near Summerville, S. C. Midland Valley Lumber Co., a Missouri Corporation, financed Nalley in this operation. Plaintiff, of Charleston, S. C., was in the logging and lumber business.

2. After the fire further sawing operation was impractical, and Midland sought ways to dispose of the stock of logs remaining in order to liquidate an admitted $14,257.97 invested in the logs. One R. R. Gullett, experienced logger from Louisiana was retained to dispose of this stock. It appears that almost a [886]*886month elapsed before an agreement was reached with plaintiff for disposal of the logs. This agreement, reduced to writing, was as follows: ¹

“NALLEY LUMBER CO., INC.

Band Sawn Hardwoods

P. O. Box 564

Summerville, S. C.

April 26,1963

We have agreed to sell all hardwood logs located on Nalley Lumber-Co. yard at Summerville, S. C. to and through James McManus at $40.00 per MBf Doyle scale. Mr. McManus to start moving logs no later than monday April 29th 1963. All payment on logs to be made-to Midland Valley Lumber Co. The above price agreed to by J. Larry Nalley President of Nalley Lumber Co. Mutual Scale

Nalley Lumber Co. Midland Valley Lumber Co.

/s/ J. Larry Nalley /s/ R. R. Gullett

J. Larry Nalley — President R. R. Gullett”

Present at the signing of the agreement was one James E. Bailey, who was a purchaser of logs for Nalley.

On April 29 plaintiff sent two trucks and removed logs sold to Drexel Furniture Co., Drexel, North Carolina, for which Midland received $123.28 @ $40.00 thousand feet and plaintiff received $30.-00 per thousand. Plaintiff continued to move logs through May 2, 1963 when he was stopped by Gullett. There was no dispute that Gullett was the agent of Midland. During the brief period of operation plaintiff hired other trucks to assist in the removal of the logs; in each instance Midland received the $40.-00 per thousand and plaintiff received whatever profit his sale price amounted to over that figure.

Gullett claimed that plaintiff was disposing of only the better logs and that he insisted that plaintiff put up bond, to which Gullett claims plaintiff agreed but did not perform. Gullett claims that he stopped plaintiff’s removal after this noncompliance. Plaintiff disputes this.

There is no dispute about the effort of' McManus to remove, nor that he was-stopped by Gullett. Plaintiff claims 335,-764 board feet² were involved; defendant claims 298,261. Plaintiff claims a net total due of $11,642.61 on logs he could have sold at a profit; after stopping plaintiff defendant disposed of the logs remaining for $8659.55. These figures reveal a discrepancy of 11.2%. Since the defendant’s figures were from actual scalings we use defendant’s figures, at $30.00 profit per thousand, plaintiff could only realize gross profit of $9314.08. Included in this profit, admittedly would be costs of hauling. Dispute was had as to such costs, but plaintiff, who did the-hauling affixed costs at % of the $30.00' profit or 40%. Since plaintiff did not haul after Gullett stopped him he cannot collect for any loss unexpended. Plaintiff then would be limited to a recovery of' 60% of $9314.08 or $5588.44. It is singular that although defendant only realized $8659.55 for the logs,³ that there was no dispute that plaintiff received a. profit on the logs he was allowed to sell.

[887]*887There was some dispute as to the quality on affecting the ability of plaintiff to .sell for a profit. After listening to the testimony, the Court finds as a fact the figure of $80.00 a thousand is reasonable. The reasonableness of these calculations .is emphasized by the offer of Mr. Mc-Kittrick of Laurens to pay McManus $70.00 a thousand for the logs and the . statement of Gullett to Nalley ⁴ that Mc-Manus was going to make five or six •.thousand dollars on Midland’s money.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Plaintiff and defendant en- • tered into a binding written contract for the sale of the logs. This contract meets 'both conditions of Section 11-103 of the South Carolina Code of Laws for 1962 as amended.⁵ See Smith v. Evans, 36 S.C. 69, 15 S.E. 344. After McManus had been prevented from performing he was no longer obligated to perform.

There was no oral rescission of the written contract. The parties to a •written contract may modify it orally •and may rescind it in the same manner, but the agreement should be clear, positive and above suspicion.⁶ Such is not the case here.

The measure of damages for breach of contract is loss actually suffered by contractee as a result of breach. South Carolina Finance Corp. of Andeson v. West Side Finance Co., 236 S.C. 109, 113 S.E.2d 329. The damages here are the profits that have been preventeor lost.

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff is entitled to judgment .against defendant in the sum of Five Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Eight and 44/100 ($5588.44) Dollars.

Defendant shall pay the costs.

And it is so ordered.

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

HEMPHILL, Chief Judge.

This action, heard by the Court without a jury, at Charleston, South Carolina, August 4, 1964, joins issues on a claim for actual damages arising out of claimed breach of contract between the parties. After taking the testimony and hearing arguments of counsel, (trial briefs being before me and considered) I have determined the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. NALLEY LUMBER CO., INC., a South Carolina Corporation, whose President was J. Larry Nalley was, until devastated by fire in March of 1963, engaged in sawing hardwood logs into lumber at its plant at or near Summerville, S. C. Midland Valley Lumber Co., a Missouri Corporation, financed Nalley in this operation. Plaintiff, of Charleston, S. C., was in the logging and lumber business.

2. After the fire further sawing operation was impractical, and Midland sought ways to dispose of the stock of logs remaining in order to liquidate an admitted $14,257.97 invested in the logs. One R. R. Gullett, experienced logger from Louisiana was retained to dispose of this stock. It appears that almost a [886]*886month elapsed before an agreement was reached with plaintiff for disposal of the logs. This agreement, reduced to writing, was as follows: ¹

“NALLEY LUMBER CO., INC.

Band Sawn Hardwoods

P. O. Box 564

Summerville, S. C.

April 26,1963

We have agreed to sell all hardwood logs located on Nalley Lumber-Co. yard at Summerville, S. C. to and through James McManus at $40.00 per MBf Doyle scale. Mr. McManus to start moving logs no later than monday April 29th 1963. All payment on logs to be made-to Midland Valley Lumber Co. The above price agreed to by J. Larry Nalley President of Nalley Lumber Co. Mutual Scale

Nalley Lumber Co. Midland Valley Lumber Co.

/s/ J. Larry Nalley /s/ R. R. Gullett

J. Larry Nalley — President R. R. Gullett”

Present at the signing of the agreement was one James E. Bailey, who was a purchaser of logs for Nalley.

On April 29 plaintiff sent two trucks and removed logs sold to Drexel Furniture Co., Drexel, North Carolina, for which Midland received $123.28 @ $40.00 thousand feet and plaintiff received $30.-00 per thousand. Plaintiff continued to move logs through May 2, 1963 when he was stopped by Gullett. There was no dispute that Gullett was the agent of Midland. During the brief period of operation plaintiff hired other trucks to assist in the removal of the logs; in each instance Midland received the $40.-00 per thousand and plaintiff received whatever profit his sale price amounted to over that figure.

Gullett claimed that plaintiff was disposing of only the better logs and that he insisted that plaintiff put up bond, to which Gullett claims plaintiff agreed but did not perform. Gullett claims that he stopped plaintiff’s removal after this noncompliance. Plaintiff disputes this.

There is no dispute about the effort of' McManus to remove, nor that he was-stopped by Gullett. Plaintiff claims 335,-764 board feet² were involved; defendant claims 298,261. Plaintiff claims a net total due of $11,642.61 on logs he could have sold at a profit; after stopping plaintiff defendant disposed of the logs remaining for $8659.55. These figures reveal a discrepancy of 11.2%. Since the defendant’s figures were from actual scalings we use defendant’s figures, at $30.00 profit per thousand, plaintiff could only realize gross profit of $9314.08. Included in this profit, admittedly would be costs of hauling. Dispute was had as to such costs, but plaintiff, who did the-hauling affixed costs at % of the $30.00' profit or 40%. Since plaintiff did not haul after Gullett stopped him he cannot collect for any loss unexpended. Plaintiff then would be limited to a recovery of' 60% of $9314.08 or $5588.44. It is singular that although defendant only realized $8659.55 for the logs,³ that there was no dispute that plaintiff received a. profit on the logs he was allowed to sell.

[887]*887There was some dispute as to the quality on affecting the ability of plaintiff to .sell for a profit. After listening to the testimony, the Court finds as a fact the figure of $80.00 a thousand is reasonable. The reasonableness of these calculations .is emphasized by the offer of Mr. Mc-Kittrick of Laurens to pay McManus $70.00 a thousand for the logs and the . statement of Gullett to Nalley ⁴ that Mc-Manus was going to make five or six •.thousand dollars on Midland’s money.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Plaintiff and defendant en- • tered into a binding written contract for the sale of the logs. This contract meets 'both conditions of Section 11-103 of the South Carolina Code of Laws for 1962 as amended.⁵ See Smith v. Evans, 36 S.C. 69, 15 S.E. 344. After McManus had been prevented from performing he was no longer obligated to perform.

There was no oral rescission of the written contract. The parties to a •written contract may modify it orally •and may rescind it in the same manner, but the agreement should be clear, positive and above suspicion.⁶ Such is not the case here.

The measure of damages for breach of contract is loss actually suffered by contractee as a result of breach. South Carolina Finance Corp. of Andeson v. West Side Finance Co., 236 S.C. 109, 113 S.E.2d 329. The damages here are the profits that have been preventeor lost.

JUDGMENT

Plaintiff is entitled to judgment .against defendant in the sum of Five Thousand Five Hundred Eighty Eight and 44/100 ($5588.44) Dollars.

Defendant shall pay the costs.

And it is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 F. Supp. 885, 1964 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcmanus-v-midland-valley-lumber-co-southcarolinaed-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack