Ludlow v. King

• Decision Date: 24 June 1918
• Docket Number: 9985.
• Citation: 96 S.E. 247,110 S.C. 88
• Parties: LUDLOW v. KING ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

96 S.E. 247

110 S.C. 88

LUDLOW v. KING ET AL.

No. 9985.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 24, 1918

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Anderson County; Jas. E Peurifoy, Judge.

Action by H. Ludlow against Warley C. King and Ellison C. Asbell. From an order directing a verdict for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Judgment reversed.

Bonham Watkins & Allen, of Anderson, for appellants.

M. R McDonald, of Walhalla, for respondent.

GARY C.J.

This is an appeal from an order directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The facts are thus stated in the record:

"Plaintiff sued defendants, alleging that during the years 1913 and 1914 he was a tenant of defendant King, and became indebted to King individually, and to King and Asbell as partners for merchandise and supplies in an amount aggregating several hundred dollars; that he had overpaid all this indebtedness; that an accounting had been had between the parties, which showed that he had overpaid all his indebtedness to defendants in a sum aggregating $176.01; that this amount had been paid by him through mistake, inadvertence, misapprehension, and erroneous bookkeeping on the part of defendants; and that defendants are now due plaintiff the sum of $176.01. Defendants denied these allegations, and alleged that plaintiff not only had not paid his indebtedness, but that he is still indebted to defendants in a considerable sum of money, and they asked that an accounting be had and judgment rendered against him for such amount as should be found due by him to defendants. The case was tried before Judge Peurifoy and a jury at the March term of court, 1918; plaintiff was sworn and testified in his own behalf, and his attorney offered in evidence judgment roll No. 3426 in the clerk of court's office for Oconee county, being the judgment roll in the case of Warley C. King and Ellison C. Asbell, as partners in trade under the style and firm name of King & Asbell, against H. Ludlow. Defendants objected to the introduction of this record on the ground that it was incompetent to prove by it that the defendants, King and Asbell, in the present action owe anything to the plaintiff, since it appears from said record First, that the question of whether King and Asbell owed H. Ludlow anything was not an issue in that case, and could not therefore be properly decided in it; and, second, because no judgment was rendered in that action against King and Asbell for said sum. Defendant's objections were overruled, and the record allowed in evidence. On behalf of the defendants each of them testified that, after allowing plaintiff all just credits upon his accounts, he still owes the sum of $187.62. They also introduced the testimony of J. B. Ligon, their bookkeeper, who introduced their books of account to the same

...