McLaurin v. Hamer

• Decision Date: 13 January 1932
• Docket Number: 13326.
• Parties: McLAURIN v. HAMER.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

164 S.E. 2

165 S.C. 411

McLAURIN v. HAMER.

No. 13326.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 13, 1932

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Dillon County; C. C Featherstone, Judge.

Action by J. P. McLaurin against W. M. Hamer. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

The exceptions referred to in the opinion follow:

Exceptions.

1. Because the court erred, it is respectfully submitted, in directing a verdict for the defendant, in that, there was evidence showing that the plaintiff sold to the defendant his interest in the property in question and that thereafter the defendant appropriated such interest to his own use and disposed of the same.

2. Because the Court erred, it is respectfully submitted, in directing a verdict for the defendant, in that, there was evidence showing that the defendant offered to purchase the interest of the plaintiff in the property in question and that the plaintiff accepted this offer, and hence a binding bilateral contract was thereby created .

3. Because the Court erred, it is respectfully submitted, in directing a verdict for the defendant upon the ground that his letter of October 19, 1926, was merely preliminary to further negotiations and was not sufficient upon which to base a contract, in that, the said letter was not rightly construed by the Court.

4. Because the Court erred, it is respectfully submitted, in directing a verdict for the defendant upon the ground that his letter of October 19, 1926, was merely preliminary to further negotiations and was not sufficient upon which to base a contract, in that, the acceptance of the plaintiff manifestly showed that he reasonably construed the said letter to contain an offer to purchase, and there was evidence showing that with full knowledge of such construction the defendant acquiesced therein both by silence and by conduct, and hence the defendant is estopped to claim and waived the right to claim, that plaintiff's understanding of his letter was incorrect.

5. Because the Court erred, it is respectfully submitted, in directing a verdict for the defendant, in that, if the contract in question as evidenced by the correspondence between the parties was ambiguous or capable of more than one construction the question of interpretation should have been submitted to the jury with proper instructions.

6. Because the Court erred, it is respectfully submitted, in directing a verdict for the defendant and in holding that no demand had been made by the plaintiff for secured notes but only for cash, in that the pleadings and evidence show that the defendant repudiated his obligations under the contract and hence no demand was necessary.

L. D. Lide, of Marion, and Joe P. Lane, of Dillon, for appellant.

Jas. R. Coggeshall, of Darlington, and H. E. Davis, of Florence, for respondent.

CARTER J.

This action, commenced in the court of common pleas for Dillon county, October, 1929, is a suit for the alleged purchase price of an equitable interest which the plaintiff alleges he owned in certain Florida lands, and which he alleges he sold to the defendant. The defendant, in his answer, denied having entered into the alleged contract of purchase with the plaintiff and denied owing the plaintiff any amount. Issues being joined the case was tried at the April, 1930, term of said court before his honor, Judge C. C. Featherstone, and a jury. At the close of all of the testimony, offered by the plaintiff and the defendant, the trial judge, of his own motion, directed a verdict for the defendant, and from the judgment entered thereon, the plaintiff has appealed to this court.

The principal question raised by the exceptions, which will be incorporated in the report of the case, is: Was there a contract between the parties, such as the law recognizes and will enforce, for a sale to the defendant of the plaintiff's interest in the land referred to?

In order to better understand the questions involved, we quote herewith a letter written to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff has incorporated in his complaint:

"Orlando, Fla., Dec. 17, 1925.

"Mr. J. P. McLaurin,

"Dillon, S. C.

"Dear Sir:

"This is to acknowledge and receipt you for the payment of $2,500.00 on your subscription of $9,000.00 in purchase and development of the six hundred and seventy-five acres, more or less, of land in Orange County, Florida, better known as the 'Metcalf Estate' on Lake Butler, which was this day conveyed to C. A. Roberts and W. M. Hamer, trustees, by Robert C. Geigel.

"The purchase price of said lands being $432,000.00 and payable as follows:

Cash ...................	$ 92,000.00
August 1st, 1926 @ 7% ..	40,000.00
1927 .......	25,000.00
1928 .......	50,000.00
1929 .......	50,000.00
1930 .......	50,000.00
1931 .......	50,000.00
1932 .......	75,000.00
	-----------
	$432,000.00

"The subscribers being
C. A. Roberts, Orlando, Fla.....	$144,000.00
W. M. Hamer, Orlando, Fla.......	98,000.00
J. W. Hamer, Dillon, S. C.......	90,000.00
H. W. Rogers, Dillon, S. C......	50,000.00
J. R. Rogers, Dillon, S. C......	15,000.00
J. P. McLaurin, Dillon, S. C....	10,000.00
Jno. C. Bothea, Dillon, S. C....	8,000.00
J. H. McLaurin, Dillon, S. C....	9,000,00
J. F. Thompson, Dillon, S. C....	8,000.00
	-----------
	$432,000.00

" The above deed was taken in the names of C. A. Roberts and W. M. Hamer, trustees, as a matter of convenience for making any and all papers necessary in the transfer, sale and development of said land, from time to time, and as in their judgment may seem best.

"Each subscriber above named shall participate in the profits and contribute cash in the developments (such as making streets, side walks, installing lights, water, sewerage, surveys, taxes, etc.) in proportion to his subscription above made and his liability in accordingly.

"There are no agreements, understandings or obligations not herein written and failure to meet all further payments by subscribers when and as called for by the trustee shall forfeit by him all his interest as liquidated damages to those who comply with proportionate remittances."

"Yours truly,

"[Signed] C. A. Roberts

"[Signed] W. M. Hamer, Trustee."

There was testimony to the effect that the plaintiff, in compliance with the terms stated in the above letter, paid unto the said trustees the following amounts: January 6, 1926, $2,500; July 20, 1926, $275.50; July 30, 1926, $926; September 10, 1926, $74. Later, October 19, 1926, the defendant wrote the following letter to his brother, J. W. Hamer, who resides at Dillon, S. C., and who had an interest in the original transaction:

"Orlando, Fla. 10--19--26.

"Dear Jim:

"I guess you are in Columbia but this will find (you omitted) last of week--I wrote you about Metcalf and since I have had talk with Roberts and suggested that he and I buy all of you out and he favored it too but said he could not pay cash right now--nor could any of us unless collections are better than anywhere I have been. Think can get notes secured, at 8 per cent., deferred payment and 8 per cent. per annum since you paid in your cash. So you see boys at once and see what they would like to do before another call is made. If all decide to do this have each write me at once and you wire me 'all accept' and I will understand. In doing this I am advising neither way as I am here and you all there. If later big money were made it might look like I took advantage of situation--while, on the other hand a loss came I would regret your being in and I am frank to say I believe none of you would have gone in had I not done so and if any loss is to be had I had rather take it myself than to have any of you lose a cent. You had better read this to each one and let them use their own pleasure in acting. It puts me where I rather not advise--on account of uncertainties. If I were there I would act differently than when I am here. If you rather buy his little grove you like so well you might take it instead of anything else if you and he can agree on price. Unless you are going to stay here in winter I would not buy any grove and even if you were it would have to be at a bargain because they are risky too. Attend to this at once. He thinks very highly of this property. Will look for night letter wire soon.

"Love to all. Your Bro.

"W. M. Hamer."

It appears from the record that J. W. Hamer, to whom this letter was addressed, read the same to the plaintiff and afterward the plaintiff wrote the following letter to the defendant:

"Dillon S. C., Oct. 27, 1926.

"Mr. Wm. M. Hamer,

"Orlando, Fla.

"Dear Sir:

"Mr. J. W. Hamer had me to read your letter to him in reference to the Metcalf property, and it is satisfactory to

...