Cooper Corp. v. Jeffcoat, No. 16406

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtTAYLOR; BAKER
Citation217 S.C. 489,61 S.E.2d 53
PartiesCOOPER CORPORATION v. JEFFCOAT et al.
Docket NumberNo. 16406
Decision Date07 September 1950

Page 53

61 S.E.2d 53
217 S.C. 489
COOPER CORPORATION

v.
JEFFCOAT et al.
No. 16406.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Sept. 7, 1950.

[217 S.C. 490] Marshall B. Williams, and Hydrick & Hydrick, all of Orangeburg, for appellants.

Reddick A. Bowman, Orangeburg, for respondent.

TAYLOR, Justice.

This appeal comes to this Court from the Court of Common Pleas for Orangeburg County where respondent sought judgment in the sum of $8,549.01, this being the amount which it is contended is due and owing on account as a [217 S.C. 491] result of having sold appellants automobile tires. The appellants set forth among other things in their answer that they received the tires, made payments thereon and returned others which were defective, denied that they owe any amount on account, and contended that the tires were not as warranted under the contract, resulting in damage to the appellants.

Page 54

Upon the hearing of the cause before a judge and jury, judgment was entered for respondent in the sum of $4,274.50, as a result of which appellants now come to this Court contending that the Trial Court erred in that it admitted into evidence letters and reports of tests made on tires of respondent by persons not offered as witnesses.

The testimony discloses that appellants had purchased tires from time to time from January 14, 1948 through May 18, 1948, had made payments thereon at various intervals and that the sum total of these transactions was $18,801.55.

A pertinent portion of the testimony appears as follows:

'By Mr. Bowman:

'Q. Did your company ever attempt to have a real technical test made of your product, your tires? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. Can you name some of the people who made the tests for you? A. In Akron we had the V. F. Smithers Laboratory who test many tires every month. They have a tire testing service. We send these reports to every customer. We get monthly reports. In those laboratories

'Mr. A. J. Hydrick, Sr.: Your Honor, we object to his telling what is in the reports.

'Mr. Bowman: Your Honor, we have a case in Ruling Case Law which cites----

'(Arguments by Counsel).

'The Court: Have you a report that they made?

'Mr. Bowman: Your Honor, we have reports from five companies who made these tests, all distinct concerns.

'The Court: Offer them in evidence.

[217 S.C. 492] 'Mr. Bowman: We offer them in evidence. The five reports are in evidence as Exhibits.

'By Mr. Bowman:

'Q. This is a report from Smithers? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. What did they find about your tires?

'Mr. A. J. Hydrick, Sr.: Your Honor, this testimony should have been taken by deposition.

'The Court: I overrule the objection.

'(In evidence as Exhibit K the five reports referred to.)

'Mr. Bowman: The Smithers testing people were all of your tires * * *?

'Mr. Hydrick: Your Honor, our objection runs to all of this testimony.

'The Court: Yes, sir, the stenographer will put it down.

'The Witness: Here is the detail. The witness begins to read----

'Mr. Hydrick: Your Honor, the witness is reading from a letter.

'By Mr. Bowman:

'Q. Did that letter accompany that report? A. Yes, sir. In the same envelope.

'Mr. Hydrick, Sr.: Your Honor, we object to the introduction of the letter.

'The Court: I understand all of that. I am not going to require them to read all of that report.

'By Mr. Bowman:

'Q. Testifying from the letter--A. 'You will find attached three copies * * *'

'(The witness reads from the letter.) 'Your tire shows up very favorable.' Mr. Smithers sent an affidavit with this report. The witness reads the affidavit.

'Q. Did you ask the Dupont people to make a test for you? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. Is that the original report from them? A. Yes, sir, original letter and report.

'Q. What did they think of your product? A. They ran our tires under a government testing wall. One tire went two [217 S.C. 493] times and the other one almost four times beyond the government requirement.

'Q. Does the Standard people have a testing laboratory, the Standard people of New Jersey? A. Yes, sir, they made tests for us.

'Q. What name is that? A. Enjay Company. That is the Standard company report. They sent us this report. That is a report. We submitted four tires. All four ran under satisfactory mileage, all of them 26,000 miles or over. Not one of the tires fell in the 26,000 miles. All tires ran full mileage.

Page 55

'Q. Did the McCary Tire and Rubber Company make a test of your tires for you? A. Yes...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • State v. Williams, No. 0416
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 23 Enero 1985
    ...admitted, prejudice is presumed if the hearsay had some probative value on a material fact in the case. Cooper Corp. v. Jeffcoat, 217 S.C. 489, 61 S.E.2d 53 Our conclusion that Williams was prejudiced by the testimony of the police officer is further supported by the result reached by our S......
  • Welch v. Whitaker, No. 0202
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 28 Febrero 1984
    ...and was therefore excludable on that ground alone. Lee v. Gulf Ins. Co., 248 S.C. 296, 149 S.E.2d 639 (1966); Cooper Corp. v. Jeffcoat, 217 S.C. 489, 61 S.E.2d 53 (1950); 31A C.J.S. Evidence § 193a at 520 (1964); Id. § 194a at 547; see Culbreath v. Investors Syndicate, 203 S.C. 213, 26 S.E.......
  • Mali v. Odom, No. 1124
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 23 Febrero 1988
    ...error when it admitted these estimates. We turn now to the question of prejudice. Our Supreme Court, citing Cooper Corp. v. Jeffcoat, 217 S.C. 489, 61 S.E.2d 53 (1950), held in South Carolina State Highway Department v. Graydon, 246 S.C. 509, 144 S.E.2d 484 (1965), that the admission of inc......
  • Orangeburg County Dept. of Social Services v. Schlins
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 30 Marzo 1987
    ...the hearsay rule is that the declarant is not present and therefore is unavailable for cross-examination. Cooper Corporation v. Jeffcoat, 217 S.C. 489, 61 S.E.2d 53 (1950). In the present case, four key witnesses were repeatedly allowed to quote statements made by the Page 390 three-year-ol......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • State v. Williams, No. 0416
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 23 Enero 1985
    ...admitted, prejudice is presumed if the hearsay had some probative value on a material fact in the case. Cooper Corp. v. Jeffcoat, 217 S.C. 489, 61 S.E.2d 53 Our conclusion that Williams was prejudiced by the testimony of the police officer is further supported by the result reached by our S......
  • Welch v. Whitaker, No. 0202
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 28 Febrero 1984
    ...and was therefore excludable on that ground alone. Lee v. Gulf Ins. Co., 248 S.C. 296, 149 S.E.2d 639 (1966); Cooper Corp. v. Jeffcoat, 217 S.C. 489, 61 S.E.2d 53 (1950); 31A C.J.S. Evidence § 193a at 520 (1964); Id. § 194a at 547; see Culbreath v. Investors Syndicate, 203 S.C. 213, 26 S.E.......
  • Mali v. Odom, No. 1124
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 23 Febrero 1988
    ...error when it admitted these estimates. We turn now to the question of prejudice. Our Supreme Court, citing Cooper Corp. v. Jeffcoat, 217 S.C. 489, 61 S.E.2d 53 (1950), held in South Carolina State Highway Department v. Graydon, 246 S.C. 509, 144 S.E.2d 484 (1965), that the admission of inc......
  • Orangeburg County Dept. of Social Services v. Schlins
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 30 Marzo 1987
    ...the hearsay rule is that the declarant is not present and therefore is unavailable for cross-examination. Cooper Corporation v. Jeffcoat, 217 S.C. 489, 61 S.E.2d 53 (1950). In the present case, four key witnesses were repeatedly allowed to quote statements made by the Page 390 three-year-ol......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT