John T. Stanley Co. Inc v. Kaufman, 13701.

• Decision Date: 11 October 1933
• Docket Number: No. 13701.,13701.
• Parties: JOHN T. STANLEY CO., Inc. v. KAUFMAN et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

171 S.E. 32

JOHN T. STANLEY CO., Inc.
v.
KAUFMAN et al.

No. 13701.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Oct. 11, 1933.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Greenville County; M. M. Mann, Judge.

Action by the John T. Stanley Company, Inc., against Bernard Kaufman and Annie Kaufman, individually, and as partners doing business as Kaufman Bros., who filed a counterclaim. Prom an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.

Aflirmed.

Wilton H. Earle, of Greenville, for appellant.

Price & Poag and W. A. Bull, all of Greenville, for respondents.

CARTER, Justice.

As plaintiff, John T. Stanley Company, Inc., commenced this action against the defendants, Bernard Kaufman and Annie Kaufman, individually, and as partners doing business as Kaufman Bros., in the court of common pleas for Greenville county May 14, 1931, for

[171 S.E. 33]

the recovery of judgment in the sum of $3,994.16, based on the allegation that the plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendants goods and merchandise for that price, alleging that sum to be due thereon, after allowing all credits. In their answer the defendants interposed a general denial and also set up a counterclaim alleging that the defendants were, and had been, engaged in operating an automobile accessory business in the city of Greenville, which operations, according to defendants' allegations, extended throughout Greenville county and the surrounding towns and counties for a distance of approximately 125 miles; further, that the plaintiff and defendants were parties to a contract, under the terms of which the defendants were the exclusive agents of the plaintiff in the city of Greenville and the said surrounding territory, for the "sale of glycerine and anti freeze"; that, after the execution of the said contract, the "plaintiff, in disregard of its agreement, and in fraud of defendants' rights, shipped to one of defendants' competitors the same merchandise, which plaintiff was selling defendants, in defendants' exclusive territory, " and that thereby the defendants were damaged in the sum of $5,000 actual damages and $5,000 punitive damages. In its reply to the answer and counterclaim of the defendants the plaintiff denied the facts alleged therein.

The case was tried at the October, 1932, term of said court before his honor, Judge M. M. Mann, and a jury. At the trial of the case the defendants relied upon the counterclaim, admitting the allegations of the plaintiff as set forth in the complaint. At the close of the introduction of the testimony, a motion of the plaintiff for direction of a verdict for the plaintiff being refused, the case was submitted to the jury, and a verdict returned for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $3,994.16, and in favor of the defendants against the plaintiff in the sum of $2,515.16, leaving a net balance in favor of the plaintiff of $1,479. As we understand the record, the amount the jury found for the defendants against the plaintiff was actual damages, and no punitive damages were found against the plaintiff. From judgment entered on the verdict in favor of the defendants the plaintiff has appealed to this court and asks a reversal of said judgment upon exceptions presented.

In the appeal quite a number of exceptions are presented, but, for the benefit of the court, appellant's counsel states in his brief that the questions for determination are that "the presiding Judge erred (1) in refusing to direct a verdict in favor of appellant on respondents' counterclaim, (a) actual damages and (b) punitive damages; and (2) also, the admission in...