Independent Guano Co. v. Hindman

• Decision Date: 09 January 1924
• Docket Number: 11393.
• Parties: INDEPENDENT GUANO CO. v. HINDMAN.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

120 S.E. 837

127 S.C. 263

INDEPENDENT GUANO CO. v. HINDMAN.

No. 11393.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 9, 1924

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Greenville County; C. M Efird, Special Judge.

Action by the Independent Guano Company against C. C. Hindman. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Martin & Blythe, of Greenville, for appellant.

Hodges & Leatherwood, of Greenville, for respondent.

FRASER J.

The plaintiff brought this action upon an account for fertilizers sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant admits that he bought some of the fertilizer. Some of the fertilizer was delivered to tenants of the defendant and his wife. The defendant did not deny that the tenants received the fertilizer, but claimed that the sale was made to the tenants and not to himself.

The question in the case is, Who bought the fertilizer, the defendant or the tenants?

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount. From the judgment entered upon this verdict the defendant appealed. There are two exceptions, and are as follows:

"(1) Because his honor erred in charging the jury as follows: 'If you find by the preponderance of the evidence that he became indebted for goods sold and delivered to himself, then the verdict should go against defendant; but for any goods sold and delivered to his tenants he could not be held responsible in the absence of some memorandum in writing signed by him, or unless he accepted some part of them, or gave something to bind the bargain, as provided in this act.'

Specification: If the sale was made to the tenant or tenants then such tenant or tenants would be the buyer or buyers, and the defendant would not be liable under the statute, even though he should have accepted some part of the goods himself or admitted liability, therefor, as in this case he did admit the liability for certain portion of the goods as shown in the answer.

(2) Because his honor erred in charging the jury as follows 'Now, gentlemen, in all cases the party who comes into court and tenders an issue has the burden of proof; so on every material issue in this case the party who tenders it must prove it by the preponderance of the evidence, and it is your duty not to find any issue in favor of either party unless he has proven it to your satisfaction by the preponderance of the evidence.'

Specification: As charged, in effect, he imposed upon the defendant the necessity of proving to the satisfaction of the jury the negative of any issue raised by his denials before the jury could find in his favor on said issue."

His Honor charged the jury as follows:

"So, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen, if you conclude by the preponderance of the evidence on the first issue that a contract of sale was made and agreed upon, and that the minds of Mr. Patton and Mr. Hindman agreed and met upon a contract of sale as alleged in this

...