Harvey v. Doty
| Decision Date | 15 March 1899 |
| Citation | 32 S.E. 501,54 S.C. 382 |
| Parties | HARVEY et al. v. DOTY. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Fairfield county; R. C Watts, Judge.
Action of W. P. Harvey & Co. against W. R. Doty. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
J. E McDonald, for appellants.
Ragsdale & Ragsdale, for respondent.
This action was once before in this court, when the nonsuit granted defendant was reversed. 50 S.C. 548, 27 S.E. 943. At September, 1898 term, it was tried before Judge Gage and a jury. After verdict for defendant and judgment thereupon plaintiffs appealed to this court on the following grounds (1) For that his honor erred in charging the jury that where an agent makes contracts in good faith, in his own name with other parties as principals to such contracts, for the sale of property for future delivery, and there is a bona fide intention on the part of such agent and the other principals to the contracts, at the time of the making of the contracts to actually deliver, on the one hand, and actually receive, on the other, at the time or period mentioned in the future, such agent cannot recover losses or advances made on such contracts from his principal, unless he shows that it was the bona fide intention of his principal and the other parties to the contracts, at the time of the making thereof, to actually deliver and receive the property so sold at the maturity of the said contracts. (2) For that his honor erred in charging the jury that where an agent makes contracts for future delivery in his own name with other parties, such agent and other parties being the principals to said contracts, and it being the bona fide intention of both of said parties, at the time of the making of the said contracts, the one to deliver, and the other to receive, the property in kind at the maturity of the contracts, the burden of proof is upon such agent to show that it was the bona fide intention of both his principal and the other parties to the contracts, at the time of the making of the contracts, to actually deliver and receive the property in kind at the period fixed in the future for the delivery thereof. (3) For that his honor erred in not holding, and so charging the jury in this case, that section 1859, 1 Rev. St., contemplates the making of contracts, the sale and transfer of property therein mentioned for future delivery, by and through agents; that, under said section, such agents may make said contracts in their own names, with other parties as principals thereto; and if, at the time said contracts are made, it is the bona fide intention of the said agents and other parties to the said contracts to deliver and receive the property so sold, as required by said section, then said contracts of sale and transfer for future delivery are good and valid, under section 1, binding on the principal of such agents, and the agents may recover from their principal for all losses incurred on said contracts, or advance made thereon for their principal; and the undisclosed intention of their principal not to deliver the property so sold will not vitiate the said contracts, nor prevent a recovery by the agents for losses and advances arising upon such contracts. (4) For that his honor erred in not holding, and so charging the jury, in this case, that where an agent is authorized to sell for future delivery any of the property mentioned in said section 1859, and makes the contracts of sale and delivery in his own name with other parties as principals, and both parties have the bona fide intention required by said section to deliver and receive said property, then it is the intention of such agent and such other parties that makes the contracts valid, and not the intention of such other parties and the principal of the agent; and, if such contracts are made in good faith by the agent, his principal is estopped from disputing the validity of such contracts. (5) For that his honor erred in not holding and charging the jury in this case that when an agent is authorized to sell for future delivery, and makes the contract in his own name with other parties as principals, and with the bona fide intention on the part of both such agent and such other parties, as is required by section 1859, then said contracts are good and valid, under the laws of this state; and section 1860 simply places the burden of proof on the agent to show such fact, to entitle him to recover from his principal for advances made or losses incurred in executing such contracts; and the undisclosed and secret intention of his principal not to deliver, as required by section 1859, cannot affect or invalidate said contracts, or prevent a recovery of such advances and losses made and incurred by the agent. (6) For that his honor erred in not granting a new trial upon the minutes of the court, when it was brought to his attention that he had erred in charging the jury that an agent could not recover for advances and losses upon such contracts, if it was not the intention of his principal to deliver the property according to the provisions of the law of this state, even although it was the bona fide intention of the agent and the other parties to the contracts to make the...
To continue reading
Request your trial