Moorer v. Andrews

Decision Date06 September 1893
Citation17 S.E. 948,39 S.C. 427
PartiesMOORER et al. v. ANDREWS et al.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Injunction—Damages on Bond.

Defendant, having a contract to supply a certain number of cords of wood a week at a certain price, was enjoined from cutting timber on the land. The injunction being dissolved, held, that his damages were measured by the net profits on the wood he could have delivered while the order stood, but did not include profits he could have made afterwards had not his men strayed off pending the injunction, and he been unable, when it was dissolved, to hire enough men to fill his contract.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Orangeburg county; J. B. Kershaw, Judge.

Action by Sarah A. Moorer and Olivia M. Keitt against J. Hesse Andrews and Henrietta H. Keitt to enjoin waste by said Andrews. December 3, 1884, plaintiffs gave bond, and next day injunction was served on said Andrews. December 15, 18841 Andrews obtained a dissolution of the injunction. May 24, 1890, the question of defendant's damages from the injunction were referred to the master of Orangeburg county, and testimony taken. The principal damages claimed were for Andrews' loss on a contract with one George H. Cornelson to cut and deliver 18 cords of wood a week. Andrews claimed a loss of the net profit on 500 cords, at 95 cents net profit, viz. $475, and the master allowed it. On exceptions to the report, the court allowed only $34.20 on said item; that is, the loss accrued during the two weeks that the injunction continued. The portion of the master's report which regards this claim is as follows: "Andrews had in his employ, at the time of service of said injunction order, about 30 or 35 hands, some of them from Barnwell and some from Sumter county, all of whom were engaged in cutting wood upon the lands in the possession of the defendant Andrews, and which were the lands in controversy between the plaintiffs and himself in this action; that said injunction order stopped said defendant Andrews from cutting and delivering wood under the said contract with Cornelson, and his hands became scattered, so that when the injunction was dissolved, and he could resume cutting and hauling, he could get but a small force of hands, insufficient in number to enable him to fully comply with his contract with Cornelson, and, by reason thereof, he failed to deliver to said Cornelsou under his said contract not less than 500 cords of wood, upon which he lost his profits. * * * The loss of profits by Andrews under his contract with Cornelson was the natural, actual, and proximate result of the plaintiffs' injunction; and the same can be ascertained with certainty, and said profits are not involved in speculation and doubt. He was to furnish Cornelson with a specified number of cords of wood, at a price certain, which yielded him a net profit of ninety-five cents a cord. He lost his profits on not less than 500 cords of wood, and is entitled to his dam-anges therefor, amounting to four hundred and seventy-five dollars. The plaintiffs and their sureties would, I think, have been entitled to reduce the amount of such damages if it had appeared that Andrews had sold any part of the 500 cords on which he lost his profits by reason of the injunction, but the testimony does not show any such circumstance." Andrews appeals. Affirmed.

Izlar, Glaze & Herbert, for appellant.

Browning S. Dibble, for respondents.

POPE, J. This action was heard by his honor, Judge Kershaw, upon exceptions to the report of the master, and now comes on to be heard in this court upon an appeal from the decree of the circuit judge. It seems that the plaintiffs brought an action in the court of common pleas for Orangeburg county to restrain the defendant Andrews from cutting down and disposing of by sale the timber growing upon a certain tract of land of Which Mrs. Ann C. Andrews was in possession at the time of her death,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • IN RE FARMERS'UNION MERCANTILE CO.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • May 14, 1928
    ...the dissolution of an injunction or restraining order. Livingston v. Exum, 19 S. C. 223; Hill v. Thomas, 19 S. C. 230; Moorer v. Andrews, 39 S. C. 427, 432, 17 S. E. 948; Britt v. McCormick, 117 S. C. 8, 108 S. E. 179; Chambers v. Long, 132 S. C. 179, 128 S. E. 853. Compare First Nat. Bank ......
  • Shealy's, Inc. v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TEL. CO., Civ. A. No. 3324.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • November 24, 1954
    ...of the Court, said: "We think the proof was entirely inadequate to sustain the action. Sitton v. Macdonald, 25 S.C. 68; Moorer v. Andrews, 39 S.C. 427, 430, 17 S.E. 948; 8 Am. & Eng. Encyc. 2 Ed., 620; Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, § 745. The telegram itself was merely an invitation to......
  • First Nat. Bank v. H.L. & L.F. McSwain
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 17, 1912
    ...1038; Strauss v. Dundon (Tex. Civ. App.) 27 S.W. 503. In Livingston v. Exum, 19 S.C. 223, Hill v. Thomas, 19 S.C. 230, and Moorer v. Andrews, 39 S.C. 427, 17 S.E. 948, was held that a party enjoined might recover a reasonable attorney's fee paid for procuring a dissolution of the injunction......
  • Walker v. Oswald
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • July 15, 1936
    ... ... they are entitled to recover this sum as lost profit, under ... their contract. Moorer v. Andrews, 39 S.C. 427, 17 ... S.E. 948 ...          As to ... the amount of damages suffered by the respondent Whitmarsh ... Dunbar ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT