A. & E. Leather Goods Co. v. Sentz

• Decision Date: 22 October 1910
• Citation: 69 S.E. 390,87 S.C. 267
• Parties: A. & E. LEATHER GOODS CO. v. SENTZ.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

69 S.E. 390

87 S.C. 267

A. & E. LEATHER GOODS CO. v. SENTZ.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 22, 1910

Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 1910.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; R. W Memminger, Judge.

Action by the A. & E. Leather Goods Company against Charles F Sentz. From the judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

De Pass & De Pass, for appellant. W. H. Townsend, for respondent.

JONES C.J.

The plaintiff sued defendant before a magistrate for the price of a lot of leather goods of the value of $56.25, alleged to have been sold him by plaintiff on December 3, 1907. The magistrate rendered judgment against defendant for the amount of $7.50, which defendant admitted to be due, but on appeal to the circuit court Judge Memminger, upon the evidence, reversed the judgment of the magistrate, and gave judgment for plaintiff for the full amount claimed.

On November 30, 1907, defendant ordered plaintiff to ship on "memorandum" invoice a lot of leather goods stating that he would return those not wanted. The goods were shipped on December 3, 1907, and were received by defendant on December 7, 1907. On December 12, 1907, plaintiff wrote defendant a letter, which was stamped and deposited in the post office properly addressed, stating that on December 17 1907, regular bill for goods would be issued, and all goods kept to that time would be charged to defendant's account, and could not be credited after that date. Defendant testified that he did not receive this letter, and received no request to report; that it was the custom with class of goods received on memorandum to keep them 30 days, unless otherwise stipulated, and "the goods are returned when they write you"; that "it is no sale unless you receive a regular bill." On January 13, 1908, defendant made report on the memorandum of December 3, 1907, and deposited the goods in the express office for return to plaintiff, except one article, which defendant had sold for $7.50. In a prior transaction between the parties goods shipped on memorandum were returned within five days except such as were kept and paid for. Plaintiff contended in its further correspondence with defendant that the goods were shipped on 10 days memorandum, and defendant contended that there was no specification of time in which to report. On appeal from the magistrate plaintiff asked for reversal and new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the preponderance of the evidence, and that the magistrate and jury should have found that the defendant had only a reasonable time within which to return the goods, and that he did not exercise his option within a reasonable time. The circuit court held that the verdict...