77 S.E. 863 (S.C. 1913), Reid Phosphate Co. v. Farmers' Fertilizer Co.

Citation:77 S.E. 863, 94 S.C. 212
Opinion Judge:WOODS, J.
Party Name:REID PHOSPHATE CO. v. FARMERS' FERTILIZER CO.
Attorney:Bomar & Osborne, of Spartanburg, for appellant. Carlisle & Carlisle, of Spartanburg, for respondent.
Case Date:March 29, 1913
Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 863

77 S.E. 863 (S.C. 1913)

94 S.C. 212

REID PHOSPHATE CO.

v.

FARMERS' FERTILIZER CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 29, 1913

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Spartanburg County; Ernest Gary, Judge.

Action by the Reid Phosphate Company against the Farmers' Fertilizer Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Bomar & Osborne, of Spartanburg, for appellant. Carlisle & Carlisle, of Spartanburg, for respondent.

WOODS, J.

This action was for $1,263.10, a balance alleged to be due for the sale and shipment from Charleston by the plaintiff, Reid Phosphate Company, to the defendant, Farmers' Fertilizer Company, at Spartanburg, S.C. The defense was that the fertilizer shipped was short of the amount charged by 85 3/10 tons, of the value of $695.19. The plaintiff introduced a bill of lading of the Southern Railway Company for the entire 2,000 tons, across which was written, "Shipper's load and count." There was evidence to the effect the consignor did weigh and load the acid, and that the railroad company [94 S.C. 213] accepted its weights. In the course of the trial the circuit judge intimated his opinion that the defendant consignee was bound to settle according to the amount of acid set out in the bill of lading, but allowed the defendant to introduce some testimony tending to show that all the goods were not delivered, and that the cars were sealed when received. Adhering to his opinion, the circuit judge instructed the jury that, as between itself and the consignor, the consignee was bound by the bill of lading, and if it had any remedy for shortage it was against the carrier.

In Thomas v, Railway Co., 85 S.C. 539, 64 S.E. 220, 67 S.E. 908, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1177, 21 Ann. Cas. 223, it was held that, as...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP