Brown v. Reynolds, 20135
| Decision Date | 29 December 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 20135,20135 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Billy Gene BROWN, Appellant, v. V. C. REYNOLDS et al., Respondents. |
Thomas F. McDow, of McDow & McDow, Rock Hill, for appellant.
Edward M. Jackson, of Jackson & Leader, Rock Hill, for respondents.
On October 17, 1972, the plaintiff purchased a camper-trailer from the defendants. Thereafter, in September 1973, the defendants went upon the premises of the plaintiff and took posssession of the trailer on the theory that the plaintiff was behind with his payments. This action was commenced January 15, 1974, by the plaintiff, seeking actual and punitive damages from the defendants for the alleged conversion of the trailer. At the end of the plaintiff's presentation of evidence, the trial judge granted to the defendants a nonsuit. Plaintiff has appealed.
The contract to buy and sell was an oral one. The defendants were to keep possession of the trailer until the plaintiff paid half of $629.52, which was the purchase price. Payments were made and written receipts issued as follows:
Date Payment Balance
10-17-72 $50.00 $579.52
10-20-72 50.00 529.52
11-4-72 25.00 504.52
2-12-73 25.00 479.52
3-3-73 25.00 454.52
4-10-73 129.50 300.02
-------
$329.50 Total of
payments
On April 13, 1973, plaintiff was given possession of the trailer and a bill of sale executed by the defendants. This bill of sale reflected 'Total Sale Price $629.00; By Cash $329.00; Balance Due $300.00.' It is not clear from the record, but apparently the parties applied for, and procured, a title (similar to that issued for automobiles), which reflected title in the plaintiff with a lien in favor of the defendants. After the payments reflected hereinabove, the plaintiff made one additional $25.00 payment in July 1973.
All parties agree that there was still owing the sum of $275.00 on the day of the repossession. It is the contention of the plaintiff that payments in the amount of $25.00 per month were to be made, and that payments equaling more than that due in 14 months had been made to the defendants such that, according to the terms of the agreement, payments had been made well in advance. On the other hand, it is the contention of the defendants that payments in the amount of $25.00 were to be made each month after delivery of the trailer. If this contention is true, then the plaintiff was delinquent. On the other hand, if the plaintiff's version is correct, there was no delinquency on the day of the repossession.
The first issue which we must decide is whether the evidence of the plaintiff supports the contention hereinabove indicated. If so, a nonsuit should not have been granted.
It is academic that on a motion for a nonsuit, the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom are to be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. It is not the province of the court to weigh the testimony, but only to determine if there is any relevant competent evidence reasonably tending to establish the material elements of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellison v. Heritage Dodge, Inc.
...for involuntary nonsuit, the trial court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff [ Brown v. Reynolds, 266 S.C. 41, 221 S.E.2d 396 (1975); Holcombe v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., 317 S.E.2d 458 (S.C.App.1984) ]; and if the evidence permits only the inferenc......
-
Ringer v. Graham, 0486
...any relevant competent evidence reasonably tending to establish the material elements of the case that is challenged. Brown v. Reynolds, 266 S.C. 41, 221 S.E.2d 396 (1975); Chaney v. Burgess, 246 S.C. 261, 143 S.E.2d 521 (1965); Speed v. NAACP, --- S.C. ---, 325 S.E.2d 336 (Ct.App.1985). Wh......
-
Crapps v. Spivey
...inference can be drawn, or if the inferences to be drawn from the evidence are in doubt, a jury issue is created. Brown v. Reynolds, 266 S.C. 41, 221 S.E.2d 396 (1975). The Vendors contend that there was evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the promise was not within the S......
-
Westbury v. Bauer, 22229
..."... there is any relevant competent evidence reasonably tending to establish material elements of plaintiff's case." Brown v. Reynolds, 266 S.C. 41, 221 S.E.2d 396 (1975). At trial, there was testimony of partial payment of the alleged debt which would have tolled the Statute of Limitation......