Smith v. Spratt Mach. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 April 1896
• Citation: 24 S.E. 376,46 S.C. 511
• Parties: SMITH v. SPRATT MACH. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

24 S.E. 376

46 S.C. 511

SMITH v. SPRATT MACH. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 4, 1896

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of York county; Aldrich Judge.

Action by Augustus W. Smith against the Spratt Machine Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Wm. B McCaw, for appellant.

Finley & Brice, for respondent.

McIVER C.J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover the amounts mentioned in two bills of exchange drawn by the Tugaloo Iron Works on the defendant company in favor of the plaintiff, and accepted by said company. By the terms of these bills of exchange the amounts mentioned were to be paid out of the money due the drawer by the acceptor when the same became payable. The only defense which it is necessary to notice under this appeal was that no money ever became due the Tugaloo Iron Works by the Spratt Machine Company. It is a conceded fact that the Tugaloo Iron Works entered into a contract with the Spratt Machine Company to furnish certain iron work to be used by the defendant company in the construction of the courthouse at Yorkville. No time was specified in such contract for the completion of the same, but the defendant claimed, as a matter of law, the contract should have been completed within a reasonable time, and that, as a matter of fact, it was not completed within a reasonable time. It is admitted by counsel that: "At the hearing testimony was introduced by the plaintiff tending to show the size of the plant of the Tugaloo Iron Works, and the number of operatives engaged at the time the said Tugaloo Iron Works were at work upon the order of the Spratt Machine Company, and at the time the contract was awarded. Testimony was also introduced to show in what time, with the facilities at hand, the Tugaloo Iron Works could have completed the contract. Testimony was also introduced by the Spratt Machine Company, defendant, tending to show that the said Spratt Machine Company was not aware of the size of the plant of the Tugaloo Iron Works at the time the order was given by the Spratt Machine Company to the Tugaloo Iron Works; and that the Tugaloo Iron Works plant was a small and insignificant one, and, from the size of the plant and lack of facilities, they were unable to ever carry out the contract." Under the charge of his honor, Judge Aldrich, the jury found a verdict in favor of the defendant and, judgment having been entered thereon, plaintiff appeals upon the several grounds set out in the record, all of which have been waived except the third, which reads as follows: "For not charging the jury, as requested by plaintiff in his eighth request to charge, the following: 'No time having been specified in the contract between Spratt Machine Company and Tugaloo Iron Works in which the contract was to be completed, the law fixes a reasonable time; that is, such time in which parties similarly circumstanced as the Tugaloo Iron Works could have completed the contract.' And further erred in charging the jury as follows: 'That, in the main, is correct; but I cannot charge you that it means that a reasonable time is that in which a company, similarly circumstanced as the Tugaloo Iron Works were, could perform that contract. I charge you this: That the reasonable time in which to complete that contract was a time in which a corporation or individuals engaged in furnishing these iron materials would have furnished them. That is a reasonable time."' So that the only question presented by this appeal is whether the circuit judge erred in instructing the jury as to the test of what would be a reasonable time for the performance of this contract.

It seems to us that in determining what would be a reasonable time for the performance of a given contract regard should be had to the situation and circumstances of the parties, for a time which would be reasonable in one case would not be in another. Take this case as an illustration: If the defendant had entered into a similar contract with one of the largest and best equipped iron foundries in the country, the defendant might...