Independent Grain Dealers Marketing Ass'n, Inc. v. Beard
| Citation | 326 S.E.2d 169,284 S.C. 309 |
| Decision Date | 20 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 0382,0382 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Parties | INDEPENDENT GRAIN DEALERS MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. Floyd BEARD, Respondent. . Heard |
Grady E. McMehan and Charles W. Blackwell of McMehan, Hancock & Blackwell, Rock Hill, for appellant.
Doyet A. Early, III, and Richard Ness of Early & Kemp, Bamberg, for respondent.
In this breach of contract action, Independent Grain Dealers Association, Inc. (Independent) appeals from a circuit court order confirming a master's report which concluded that respondent Floyd Beard was justified in abandoning the contract. We disagree with the trial court and reverse.
The parties entered into an oral contract in July 1980 which provided that Independent would purchase 30,000 bushels of corn from Beard at a price of $3.20 per bushel. 1 Delivery of the corn was to be made to a third party, Coastal Builders, trading as Glennville Elevators, Inc., in Glennville, Georgia. The parties disagree as to when performance under this contract was to commence. Beard claims performance was to begin after he completed performance under another contract between himself and Glennville Elevators for the delivery of 75,000 bushels of corn. Independent denies that commencement of performance was conditioned on completion of performance under the other contract. Beard never completed delivery of the corn under the Glennville contract due to an alleged breach by Glennville of the terms of that contract.
Beard defends against Independent's suit for breach of contract upon the premise that since the present contract conditioned performance upon completion of delivery under the Glennville contract, breach of the Glennville contract excused him from having to perform under this contract.
The case was heard before a master based upon a stipulation of facts, the pertinent provisions of which provide:
It is stipulated that Defendant Floyd Beard would testify that he did not fulfill his obligation under his contract with Plaintiff because he had been having a dispute with Glennville Elevator, the person to whom the corn was to be delivered, concerning the weight and moisture content of corn delivered to Glennville under similar contracts.
It is stipulated that Floyd Beard would testify that he was to deliver Plaintiff's 30,000 bushels after he had delivered another 75,000 bushels to Glennville Elevator under a similar contract with a third party, and that Floyd Beard never completed the delivery of that 75,000 bushels. It is further stipulated that Plaintiff's representative would testify that this delivery provision was never a part of the contract between the parties, and that plaintiff had no knowledge of any other deliveries to be made by Defendant to anyone.
The master concluded that Beard was justified in abandoning his contract with Independent because the parties contemplated that performance under this contract would follow completion of the Glennville contract. He further concluded Glennville breached its contract with Beard, and thus Beard had no obligation to perform under the instant contract. The circuit judge agreed with the master and upheld his decision.
Although Independent poses three questions on appeal, we will consider only the question of whether the master was confined to a consideration of the facts contained in the parties' stipulations in making his decision because determination of this issue effectively disposes of the case on appeal. 2
In rendering his decision, the master viewed this case and the case of Glennville Elevators, Inc. v. Floyd Beard, No. 0472 (S.C.App., argued Nov. 20, 1984), tried before him the same day, as companion cases and utilized the evidence from the Glennville case to decide this case. The parties agree that the master's findings of fact are not supported by the stipulations in this case, but disagree as to whether he should have been confined to the stipulations in making his findings of fact.
The trial court concluded that it was proper for the master to use evidence from the other case because the contracts in the two cases were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
JK CONST. v. REGIONAL SEWER AUTHORITY
...409 S.E.2d 418 (Ct.App.1991) (stipulated facts leave only a question of law for trial court); Independent Grain Dealers Marketing Ass'n, Inc. v. Beard, 284 S.C. 309, 326 S.E.2d 169 (Ct.App.1985) (same). In such cases, the appellate court owes no particular deference to the trial court's leg......
-
Crossmann Cmtys. of N.C., Inc. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 5292.
...to determine 769 S.E.2d 461the facts upon which the case is to be decided.”); see also Indep. Grain Dealers Mktg. Ass'n v. Beard, 284 S.C. 309, 312, 326 S.E.2d 169, 171 (Ct.App.1985) (“When the parties entered into an agreed stipulation of fact as basis for the decision by the master, both ......
-
Stringer v. Herron
...court tried the case upon stipulated facts. Consequently, it had only questions of law to decide. Independent Grain Dealers Mktg. Ass'n v. Beard, 284 S.C. 309, 326 S.E.2d 169 (Ct.App.1985).2 The Chief Justice, acting for the Supreme Court, superseded the trial court's order shortly after th......