Sitton v. MacDonald

• Decision Date: 27 April 1886
• Citation: 25 S.C. 68
• Parties: SITTON v. MACDONALD.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

25 S.C. 68

SITTON v. MACDONALD.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

April 27, 1886

1. In action for damages for failing to repair a cotton-tie punch the loss of stock on hand rendered valueless by the detention of the punch, may be considered as a measure of damages, but not the profits which might have been realized from the use of the punch, unless the peculiar circumstances were known to the defendant, and his contract to repair was made with reference thereto.

2. The difference between the profits realized and the profits which might have been realized, is not recoverable as damages. The rule making the difference in price at two different dates the measure of damages in certain cases, does not apply to a case where there is a mere difference in profits, where profits are excluded as too remote to be recovered as damages.

Before COTHRAN, J., Greenville, July, 1885.

This was an action by J. W. Sitton against R. M. Macdonald commenced September 24, 1884. The opinion states the case.

Messrs. Nix, Shuman & Nix , for appellants.

Mr. A. C. Welborn , contra.

OPINION

MR JUSTICE MCGOWAN.

This was an action for damages under the following circumstances: The plaintiff made a business of buying old cotton-ties and manufacturing them into new ties. He alleged that in this business he had occasion to use a peculiar " " punch," worth some ten dollars, which could neither be made nor repaired by an ordinary blacksmith; that this punch getting out of repair, he, in July, 1882, engaged the defendant, who is the proprietor of the " Greenville Machine Works and Iron Foundry," to repair it, which he undertook to do, and return it on a given day; that on the day named he called for it, but it had not been repaired; that this occurred several times until the season of 1882 was lost, for which he claimed damages $350. That the defendant promised to have the punch repaired by July, 1883, but the same disappointments followed, until he lost the season of 1883, for which he claimed damages, $450. The same was repeated until he had lost half the season of 1884, when he purchased another punch, and sued the defendant for damages, $1,000. The defendant put in a general denial and special defence " that the cotton-tie punch was broken and useless when left at the shop of defendant."

Upon the trial, the plaintiff offered to prove " as damages the amount of profits he would have earned in the ordinary employment of the punch during the time it was detained by the defendant, viz.: during the seasons of 1882, 1883, and half of 1884. Defendant objected on the ground that such damages were too speculative, remote, and contingent. Objection sustained." The presiding judge then turned to the plaintiff, who was on the stand, and said, " If you can show that you laid in a stock of ties, & c.; if you can prove that you had made contracts to repair ties for others, or to furnish ties when repaired, & c.; if you can prove that hands were employed by the plaintiff, & c., he would be entitled to be re-imbursed their wages actually paid." The plaintiff, in accordance with this announcement, testified that " he had laid in about nine ($9.00) dollars worth of old ties to manufacture in 1882, from which he would have realized one hundred dollars profit if defendant had repaired his punch according to his promises. He kept this stock on hand until he got his new punch in 1884, after the commencement of this action, when he manufactured it into new ties, realizing from said nine dollars' worth of stock twenty-seven dollars profit." The judge charged the jury that if they believed this testimony, they should find for the plaintiff the difference between the profits he would have made out of the stock of 1882 and the profits he did make out of said stock in 1884; and that it was a question of fact for them to determine whether plaintiff, by his negligence, contributed to the loss thus sustained.

The jury found for the plaintiff $42. The defendant made a motion for a new trial, and that being refused, he appeals to this court upon the ground " that his honor erred in ruling that plaintiff could offer evidence, and the jury find as damages the difference between the profits made on material manufactured during the fall of 1884,...