Barr v. Satcher

• Decision Date: 27 June 1905
• Citation: Barr v. Satcher, 72 S. C. 35, 51 S. E. 530 (S.C. 1905)
• Parties: BARR v. SATCHER.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

51 S.E. 530

72 S.C. 35

BARR v. SATCHER.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 27, 1905

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Saluda County; Purdy Judge.

Action by C. G. Barr against James A. Satcher.From an order granting a nonsuit, plaintiff appeals.Affirmed.

Barnard B. Evans, for appellant.Able & Blease, for respondent.

GARY A. J.

This is an appeal from an order of nonsuit.The complaint alleges:

"(1) That on the 30th day of November, 1903, at Ridge Spring, in the county and state aforesaid, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement, and thereby it was mutually agreed between them as follows: That the defendant should sell and deliver to the plaintiff on demand at Wards in the county and state aforesaid, on or before the 2d day of December, 1903, twenty-one bales of lint cotton, in the aggregate weight of 10,500 pounds, and that the plaintiff should pay the defendant therefor upon delivery of said cotton at the rate of eleven and one-eighth cents per pound for each bale of said cotton.

(2) That the plaintiff was ready at the time and place appointed to receive said cotton and to pay for the same according to the agreement, and requested the defendant to deliver the same, and otherwise has duly performed all the conditions thereof on his part.

(3) That the defendant refused to deliver the said cotton, to the damage of this plaintiff in the sum of $393.75, the difference in the price at which plaintiff purchased the said cotton from the defendant and the price at which the said cotton is selling at the date of this action, to wit fourteen and seven-eighths cents.

(4) That plaintiff immediately resold the said cotton purchased from the defendant to other parties, and, in the defendant's refusal to deliver the same to the plaintiffhe has been unable to meet the demand on him for the same, and was compelled to make good the said demand by paying the difference in the price of the said cotton."

The defendant denied the allegations of the complaint, and set up as a defense that the agreement was void under the statute of frauds.

In granting the order of nonsuit, his honor the presiding judge said: "I grant the motion, first, upon the ground, as a matter of law, this action cannot be maintained under section 2653; if necessary to go further, on the further ground, from plaintiff's testimony, at the time of the commencement of the action he had not paid out any money."

The first exception is as follows: "Because his honor erred in holding that the allegations of the complaint came within the statute of frauds, and in the purview of section 2653 of the Civil Code of 1902."Section 2653 of the Code of Laws provides that "no contract for the sale of any goods, wares and merchandise for the price of fifty dollars or upwards shall be allowed to be good except the buyer shall accept part of the goods so sold and actually receive the same, or give something in earnest to bind the bargain, or in part payment, or that some note or memorandum in writing of the said bargain be made and signed by the parties to be charged by such contract, or their agents thereunto lawfully authorized."There was no testimony tending to show compliance with any of the requirements of this section, and the exception is overruled.

The...