Halsey v. Minn.-south Carolina Land & Timber Co, 13252.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | COTHRAN |
| Citation | 160 S.E. 843 |
| Decision Date | 06 October 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 13252.,13252. |
| Parties | HALSEY v. MINNESOTA-SOUTH CAROLINA LAND & TIMBER CO. et al. |
160 S.E. 843
HALSEY
v.
MINNESOTA-SOUTH CAROLINA LAND & TIMBER CO. et al.
No. 13252.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Oct. 6, 1931.
Plaintiff testified that timber was cut in a proper manner, and defendants that it had been wasted or carelessly cut. Plaintiff then offered to disprove defendants' testimony, but judge did not allow him to do so, and directed verdict for defendants.
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Charleston County; M. M. Mann, Judge.
Action by Alfred O. Halsey against the Minnesota-South Carolina Land & Timber Com pany and another. From a judgment against him, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Mitchell & Horlbeck, H. L. Erckmann, and J. C. Long, all of Charleston, for appellant.
Legare Walker, of Summerville, Lide & McCandlish, of Marion, and Thos. P. Stoney, and J. D. E. Meyer, both of Charleston, for respondents.
COTHRAN, J.
This is an action for damages in the sum of $79,490 ($64,490 actual damages and $15,000 punitive damages), sustained by the plaintiff by reason of certain false representations as to the amount of timber on certain tracts in Orangeburg county. The plaintiff alleges that in December, 1923, the defendants represented to him that there were 19, 000, 000 feet of timber upon the two tracts, and that the agreed price was based on this representation, which was falsely and fraudulently made; that it developed that there were only 12.652, 194 feet of timber, including culls and defective wood, about 10, 000, 000 feet of first-class merchantable timber.
The plaintiff offered evidence to sustain the allegations of his complaint and that the cutting was done in a proper manner; the defendants offered evidence tending to show that the quantity of represented timber was there when sold, but that it had been wasted and carelessly cut; the plaintiff offered evidence to disprove this, but was not allowed to do so; the plaintiff put up no testimony in reply, and, upon motion of the defendants, his honor directed a verdict in their favor.
The presiding judge was technically right in holding that after the plaintiff had gone into evidence tending to show that the timber was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Halsey v. Minnesota-South Carolina Land & Timber Co.
...the decision of the court of common pleas as to both defendants (Halsey v. Minnesota-South Carolina Land & Timber Co. et al. S. C. 160 S. E. 843), and ordered a new trial. On October 15, 1931, the defendant the Minnesota Company filed its petition in the Supreme Court for a rehearing; the r......
-
Halsey v. Minn.-south Carolina Land & Timber Co, No. 13517.
...verdict for the defendants. Upon appeal to this court, the judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. 162 S. C. 281, 160 S. E. 843. Up to this time no difficulties had arisen. After argument in this court and pending the decision, the defendant R. L. Montague, a resident......
-
Halsey v. Minn.-south Carolina Land & Timber Co, No. 13913.
...judge directed a verdict for the defendants. On appeal this judgment was reversed and the case sent back for rehearing. 162 S. C. 281, 160 S. E. 843. Pending the disposition of this appeal the defendant R. L. Montague died. The Timber Company filed petition for rehearing, which was denied. ......
-
Neal v. Southern Ry, No. 13047.
...that must be left largely to the discretion of the trial judge, for the reason that he is in a position to see and hear the witnesses tes-[160 S.E. 843]tify and be able to get a clear understanding of the transaction as it occurred, and unless convinced that the trial judge abused his discr......