Moore v. Marion Cotton Oil Co.

85 S.E. 52, 100 S.C. 499, 1915 S.C. LEXIS 75
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedApril 21, 1915
Docket9077
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 85 S.E. 52 (Moore v. Marion Cotton Oil 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
Moore v. Marion Cotton Oil Co., 85 S.E. 52, 100 S.C. 499, 1915 S.C. LEXIS 75 (S.C. 1915).

Opinion

The. opinion of the Court was delivered, after reciting the foregoing statement of facts, by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

1 The first and second exceptions complain of error in the admission of testimony as to the market price.” If there was error, it was wholly immaterial, because there was no contention in the evidence that the price *509 offered was up to the market price. The exact market price was not in issue.

*510 2 *509 Appellant considers 3, 4, 5 and 6 together and says exceptions 4 and 6 raise the question on the motion for a nonsuit that performance of some of the services, as to which no *510 waiver had been alleged, had not been proved and exceptions 3 and 5 present the contention that there was a failure to prove the waiver alleged as well as a failure to prove other terms of the contract as to which no waiver had been alleged. These exceptions cannot be sus *511 tained. There were but four questions. The contract was in evidence. There was evidence (it may be conflicting) that plaintiffs had performed. The question as to rescission and the sufficiency of the excuse for nonperformance, on the nonperformance pleaded, were questions for the jury.

*512 3 The seventh exception complains of error in refusing the nonsuit on the ground of a variance between the allegations of the complaint and the proof. There has been no attempt to show that the defendant has been misled and this is necessary, under the express terms of the *513 Code. See Code of Civil Procedure, section 220, and cases there cited.

*514 4 *513 The eighth and fourteenth exceptions complain that his Honor confused performance with readiness to perform. If it was error, it was not prejudicial, because the contract *514 provided that the plaintiffs agreed to purchase cotton seed with money furnished by the defendant (which plaintiffs agree to hold in trust) and to purchase at the prices named by the defendant. Plaintiffs were to buy seed with defendant’s money and at defendant’s prices. There is no showing that the conditions for service had arisen. Under the contract plaintiffs agreed to buy seed for defendant and for no one else. Plaintiff said he had *515 done more than he agreed to do by buying seed with his own money. If that was not true, defendant ought to have shown it. That is not confession and avoidance. The charge as to readiness to perform was harmless.

These exceptions cannot be sustained.

5 The ninth exception complains of a charge on the facts. This exception cannot be sustained. The statement of facts was by plaintiff’s attorney and -the record fails to show that his Honor adopted that part that stated the facts.

6 The tenth exception complains of error in the charge, that where the plaintiff alleges a contract and the defendant alleges a rescission, the burden is upon the defendant to show rescission, and if he fails, the verdict must be for the plaintiff. On that issue the statement is correct. His Honor had already charged that the plaintiff must prove his contract, by the preponderance of the evidence.

This exception is overruled.

7 The appellant groups the 11th, 12th and 13th exceptions and states the question as follows: The basis of these exceptions is that the Judge charged the jury that it would only be necessary, in order for the plaintiff to recover, for them to show a substantial performance of their contract. This charge was correct under McMillan v. Insurance Co., 78 S. C. 433, 58 S. E. 1020, 1135.

8 The sixth and seventh requests were covered by the general charge.

*516 9 The Judge is not bound to use the figure of balances and when he charges that the plaintiff is bound to prove his case by the preponderance of the evidence, he has declared the law. The fifteenth exception cannot be sustained.

10 The sixteenth exception cannot be sustained. The appellant contends that when two parties make a contract and rescind it, and make a new contract, then the party who’ would avail himself of any benefit from the contract, he must rely on the new contract. That is true, provided there is a new contract. If, however, after a rescission, the parties agree to. continue operations under the original contract, then the original contract is the only contract and is the only basis of the suit.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Hutson v. Stone
112 S.E. 39 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 S.E. 52, 100 S.C. 499, 1915 S.C. LEXIS 75, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-marion-cotton-oil-co-sc-1915.