93 S.E. 1004 (S.C. 1917), 9747, Baskin v. Sprout, Waldron & Co.

Docket Nº:9747.
Citation:93 S.E. 1004, 108 S.C. 226
Opinion Judge:GARY, C.J. GAGE, J.
Party Name:BASKIN v. SPROUT, WALDRON & CO.
Attorney:Willcox & Willcox and S. M. Wetmore, all of Florence, for appellant. Whiting & Baker, of Florence, for respondent.
Case Date:July 10, 1917
Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1004

93 S.E. 1004 (S.C. 1917)

108 S.C. 226

BASKIN

v.

SPROUT, WALDRON & CO.

No. 9747.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 10, 1917

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Florence County; Mendel L. Smith, Judge.

Action by A. L. Baskin against Sprout, Waldron & Co. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Hydrick and Watts, JJ., dissenting.

Willcox & Willcox and S. M. Wetmore, all of Florence, for appellant.

Whiting & Baker, of Florence, for respondent.

GARY, C.J.

This is an action alleging a fraudulent sale of certain mill machinery to the plaintiff by the defendant. The answer denied the material allegations of the complaint, and set up a counterclaim for the unpaid purchase money, to which the plaintiff filed a reply. At the close of the testimony the defendant made a motion for the direction of a verdict, which was refused. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $650, and the defendant appealed.

[108 S.C. 227] The complaint contains these allegations:

(1) "That on or about January 31, 1915, upon defendant's solicitation, and in consequence of its representations as to the superiority of its mill machinery, and the fitness of such machinery for the use required of it, in plaintiff's meal and grits mill at Florence, S. C., plaintiff gave to defendant an order for mill machinery, a copy of which is hereto attached and made a part of this complaint."

(2) "That in giving his order for said mill machinery plaintiff had no opportunity of seeing

Page 1005

the same or similar mill machinery in operation, or otherwise of making personal inspection of said machinery, but relied wholly upon the representations made by defendant that it would give, at low cost of operation, the capacity of output and quality of grist required in plaintiff's business, and was especially adapted to furnish the finest quality of meal, having a capacity of between 25 and 30 bushels of meal per hour, and being less expensive to operate, and much superior to the 'upper runner' mill which plaintiff had intended to purchase; that having fully informed and advised defendant as to the conditions and requirements of the business, and the necessity of furnishing the best quality of meal and grits for his trade, plaintiff trusted to the supposedly superior knowledge and experience of defendant for advice as to the kind of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP