Medlin v. Adams Grain & Provision Co.

• Decision Date: 01 March 1915
• Docket Number: 9014.
• Citation: 84 S.E. 867,100 S.C. 359
• Parties: MEDLIN v. ADAMS GRAIN & PROVISION CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

84 S.E. 867

100 S.C. 359

MEDLIN v. ADAMS GRAIN & PROVISION CO.

No. 9014.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 1, 1915

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Marlboro County; Frank B Gary, Judge.

Action by J. T. Medlin against the Adams Grain & Provision Company a corporation. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. K Owens, of Bennettsville, for appellant.

Townsend & Rogers, of Bennettsville, for respondent.

WATTS J.

This was an action for damages for breach of contract. The defendant appellant agreed to deliver to plaintiff respondent car loads of hay at different times and failed to do so. Plaintiff brought his suit, alleging that he had been damaged in the sum of $310.95. The cause was tried before Judge Frank B. Gary and a jury at the fall term of court, 1914, for Marlboro county, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $198.95. Defendant appeals, and by four exceptions asks for a reversal.

The first ground of appeal alleges error in admitting an alleged conversation over the telephone with the defendant, over defendant's objection. It appears from the record that the plaintiff, Medlin, was on the stand and attempted to detail a conversation he had with the defendant over the telephone, and upon objection the following took place:

"The Court: Let him tell exactly what took place, and then I will determine.

Q. Mr. Medlin, all that I care for you to say--did you make complaint as to the quality of the hay? A. I did. (Objected to.)

The Court: He can tell what he did.

Q. Tell what you did. A. Well, I put in a long-distance call for the Adams Grain & Provision Company. I had no acquaintance with them, and did not have the name of any. After the connection was given, I asked if it was them, and they said it was, and I told them that I paid the draft for the hay and unloaded it, and that it was very inferior in quality, more inferior than what I bought. They said they were surprised, that they had bought the hay from one of the most reliable shippers in the West, and they presumed the others would come to grade.

The Court: The jury are the ones to judge whether he was talking to the Adams Grain & Provision Company or not. He gives it as his opinion that he was. Having explained what took place, I allow it to go to the jury, and they are to determine whether or not he was talking to the grain company."

This exception is overruled. His honor committed no error, and the defendant introduced testimony, but he did not deny, explain or contradict the plaintiff on this point, and it was competent to go to the jury for what it was worth. Plaintiff put in a long-distance call for defendant, he was connected with that office, some one responded, he made complaint as to quality of hay, and said party expressed surprise, telling how hay was procured, bought by them from another party for plaintiff, and showed a familiarity with the transaction from which jury could infer that ...