State v. Pacific Guano Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Pacific Guano Co.

2 S.E. 265, 26 S.C. 610, 1887 S.C. LEXIS 49

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMarch 29, 1887

DocketNo. 2031

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 S.E. 265 (State v. Pacific Guano 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

State v. Pacific Guano Co., 2 S.E. 265, 26 S.C. 610, 1887 S.C. LEXIS 49 (S.C. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Chibe Justice Simpson,

[610]*610This case, as reported in 22 S. O-, at page 50, left open the amount and value of the rock for which the defendant was liable to account to the plaintiff. The case was referred to a referee, who took a mass of testimony which’ was reported to the court. The case was then heard by Judge Cothran, without a jury, who, finding the testimony “confused, discordant, and often unintelligible,” reached his conclusion as to the quantity of rock, as he states in his decree, by adding together the quantity claimed by the plaintiff’s counsel [611]*611and that conceded by defendant’s counsel, and dividing by two. As to the value of the rock unmined, he says he arrived at that by getting the market value of the rock when sold, as shown by the testimony, from which he deducted the expense of preparing it for market, as shown by defendant’s “weekly statements,” and the remainder was the value of the rock “in its natural state and position.” Before adopting this statement, the Circuit Judge, after the adjournment of his court, submitted it to a skilled accountant, who certified to its substantial correctness with defendant’s books. On appeal by defendant, held—

1. That facts in a law case, whether tried by judge or jury, cannot be reviewed in this court. But where the judge submits the facts to a jury under erroneous legal instructions, or where he finds the facts himself by the application of erroneous legal principles, these errors may be corrected on appeal.

2. As the judge would have erred in instructing a jury that they might find a verdict by averaging the estimates of opposing counsel, so he erred in reaching his own conclusion of fact by that method.

3. In receiving the unsworn testimony of the accountant, the Circuit Judge erred in admitting incompetent and illegal- evidence upon a fact in issue.

Judgment reversed.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Chibe Justice Simpson,

[610]*610This case, as reported in 22 S. O-, at page 50, left open the amount and value of the rock for which the defendant was liable to account to the plaintiff. The case was referred to a referee, who took a mass of testimony which’ was reported to the court. The case was then heard by Judge Cothran, without a jury, who, finding the testimony “confused, discordant, and often unintelligible,” reached his conclusion as to the quantity of rock, as he states in his decree, by adding together the quantity claimed by the plaintiff’s counsel [611]*611and that conceded by defendant’s counsel, and dividing by two. As to the value of the rock unmined, he says he arrived at that by getting the market value of the rock when sold, as shown by the testimony, from which he deducted the expense of preparing it for market, as shown by defendant’s “weekly statements,” and the remainder was the value of the rock “in its natural state and position.” Before adopting this statement, the Circuit Judge, after the adjournment of his court, submitted it to a skilled accountant, who certified to its substantial correctness with defendant’s books. On appeal by defendant, held—

1. That facts in a law case, whether tried by judge or jury, cannot be reviewed in this court. But where the judge submits the facts to a jury under erroneous legal instructions, or where he finds the facts himself by the application of erroneous legal principles, these errors may be corrected on appeal.

2. As the judge would have erred in instructing a jury that they might find a verdict by averaging the estimates of opposing counsel, so he erred in reaching his own conclusion of fact by that method.

3. In receiving the unsworn testimony of the accountant, the Circuit Judge erred in admitting incompetent and illegal- evidence upon a fact in issue.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 S.E. 265, 26 S.C. 610, 1887 S.C. LEXIS 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pacific-guano-co-sc-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack