Standard Boiler & Plate Iron Co. v. Brock

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Standard Boiler & Plate Iron Co. v. Brock

99 S.E. 769, 112 S.C. 323, 1919 S.C. LEXIS 113

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 24, 1919

Docket10215

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 S.E. 769 (Standard Boiler & Plate Iron Co. v. Brock) 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

Standard Boiler & Plate Iron Co. v. Brock, 99 S.E. 769, 112 S.C. 323, 1919 S.C. LEXIS 113 (S.C. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This was an action to recover a balance of $130, alleged to be due by defendant to plaintiff, on account for one two-compartment oil storage tank and steel structural supports, sold by the plaintiff to defendant for the sum of $530, and on which a payment was made of $400 prior to the commencement of the action. Defendant pleads a failure of consideration. The cause was tried before Judge Peurifoy and a jury at the Mar.ch term of Court, 1918, for Oconee county, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant. At the conclusion of the testimony, plaintiff’s counsel moved for a directed verdict on behalf of plaintiff, which was refused. After entry of judgment, plaintiff appealed, and alleged error in refusing to direct verdict as moved for, and from the Court’s refusal tO' charge plaintiff’s request.

*329 1-3 The exception cannot be sustained. The first request was covered by his Honor in his general charge. His Honor charged fully the law applicable to the case, and we think his charge was free from error. The plaintiff might have furnished an exact duplicate of those built by itself by the same company, and yet it might have been defective, and we see no error on the part of his Honor as complained of.

The exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed. .

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 Watts.

This was an action to recover a balance of $130, alleged to be due by defendant to plaintiff, on account for one two-compartment oil storage tank and steel structural supports, sold by the plaintiff to defendant for the sum of $530, and on which a payment was made of $400 prior to the commencement of the action. Defendant pleads a failure of consideration. The cause was tried before Judge Peurifoy and a jury at the Mar.ch term of Court, 1918, for Oconee county, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant. At the conclusion of the testimony, plaintiff’s counsel moved for a directed verdict on behalf of plaintiff, which was refused. After entry of judgment, plaintiff appealed, and alleged error in refusing to direct verdict as moved for, and from the Court’s refusal tO' charge plaintiff’s request.

*329 1-3 The exception cannot be sustained. The first request was covered by his Honor in his general charge. His Honor charged fully the law applicable to the case, and we think his charge was free from error. The plaintiff might have furnished an exact duplicate of those built by itself by the same company, and yet it might have been defective, and we see no error on the part of his Honor as complained of.

The exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed. .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.E. 769, 112 S.C. 323, 1919 S.C. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/standard-boiler-plate-iron-co-v-brock-sc-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack