Robinson v. Southern Cotton Oil Co.

• Decision Date: 06 September 1917
• Docket Number: 9807.
• Citation: 93 S.E. 395,108 S.C. 92
• Parties: ROBINSON v. SOUTHERN COTTON OIL CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

93 S.E. 395

108 S.C. 92

ROBINSON v. SOUTHERN COTTON OIL CO.

No. 9807.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

September 6, 1917

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Greenville County; Ernest Moore, Judge.

Action by Henry A. Robinson against the Southern Cotton Oil Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

McCullough Martin & Blythe, of Greenville, for appellant.

Cothran Dean & Cothran, of Greenville, and Grier, Park & Nicholson of Greenwood, for respondent.

HYDRICK J.

This case and seven others, brought by other plaintiffs named in the record, were tried together, because they all depend upon like pleadings and proof. The judgment in each of the others will be the same as in this. They all grew out of the destruction of cotton owned by the several plaintiffs by a fire which also destroyed defendant's ginnery.

Only the contested issues made by the pleadings and evidence will be stated. The complaint sets out two causes of action: The first is that, for valuable consideration, defendant received plaintiff's cotton, and agreed to gin, bale, and store it until plaintiff should remove it from defendant's yard or sell it. The second is the same, except the additional allegation that defendant warranted that it would be safe to leave the cotton on its yard. Defendant admits the agreement to gin and bale the cotton, but denies making the alleged contracts of storage and warranty of safety, and alleges that, after the cotton had been ginned and baled, plaintiff left it on defendant's yard for his own convenience and at his own risk. Upon the evidence adduced, the circuit court directed a verdict for defendant, holding that there was no evidence to support a finding that Henderson, the agent of defendant through whom the alleged contracts of storage and warranty of safety were made, had authority to make such contracts, or that defendant's negligence caused the loss.

As we have reached a different conclusion as to the inferences that may be drawn from the evidence, we state only so much of the substance of it as bears upon the issues decided below--Henderson's authority and defendant's negligence--without more comment than is necessary to indicate its tendencies and justify our conclusion. We do not intend thereby to intimate that such inferences should be drawn, but only that they may be. It is the province of the jury to say whether they should or should not be drawn, as they honestly believe the truth of the matters at issue to be.

We may say in passing that much of the testimony set out in the record bears not so much upon the points stated as upon the question whether the contracts alleged were in fact made by Henderson, whether with or without authority. That question is not at issue here, for the court below did not hold that there was no evidence that the contracts were made by Henderson, but only that there was none to support a finding that he had authority to make them.

Defendant ran a public ginnery in connection with its cotton seed oilmill. Henderson was the general manager or superintendent of the business. He solicited patronage for the ginnery to get seed for the oilmill. He admitted that he agreed to store seed for his patrons. His authority to do so was not denied in the evidence.

Plaintiff testified that Henderson was the main official in charge of defendant's business; that he knew of no limitation of his...