South Carolina Cotton Growers' Co-op. Assn v. English, (No. 12002.)

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtBLEASE
PartiesSOUTH CAROLINA COTTON GROWERS' CO-OP. ASSN. v. ENGLISH.
Docket Number(No. 12002.)
Decision Date31 May 1926

133 S.E. 542

SOUTH CAROLINA COTTON GROWERS' CO-OP. ASSN.
v.
ENGLISH.

(No. 12002.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 31, 1926.


[133 S.E. 542]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Anderson County; M. L. Bonham, Judge.

Action by the South Carolina Cotton Growers' Co-operative Association against C. G. English. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The following is the decree of Judge Bonham in the trial court:

This case came for a hearing before me, at chambers, on the 8th day of May, 1925, on proper notice given, and upon the pleadings, the report of the special referee and exceptions thereto filed by the defendant, and the testimony taken by the referee.

The action was commenced on the 22d day of September, 1924, by the service of summons and complaint upon the defendant. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendant was a member of plaintiff association, a corporation duly organized under the act of the General Assembly of this state, commonly known as the Co-operative Marketing Act, and that he had breached the term of his membership contract by failing and refusing to deliver to the plaintiff of any of the cotton produced by or for him for the year 1923, and asks liquidated damages, as provided in said contract, and also prays for a decree for the specific performance of the contract, and for an injunction restraining the defendant from any further breaches of his contract and from disposing of any of the cotton produced by, or for, him or under his control during the years 1924, 1925, and 1926. The complaint also asks for judgment for reasonable attorney's fees, costs of suit, and for such additional sums as the plaintiff may have to expend in the prosecution of the action, as provided for in said contract.

The answer of the defendant, after generally denying the allegations of the complaint, except the formal parts thereof, sets up several defenses of an affirmative nature, among them, that the contract was obnoxious to the state and federal anti-trust laws and for that reason invalid as being in restraint of trade; for lack of mutuality in the contract; for fraud in procuring the.contract, by reason of false representations; for invalidity under both the state and federal Constitutions; and also that the defendant had not breached bis contract with plaintiff, for the reason that he had not produced any cotton during the year 1923.

The case was referred, by consent of counsel, to H. E. Bailey, Esq., the probate judge, as special referee, to take the testimony and report his findings and conclusions of fact. The testimony was taken by the special referee, and his report was duly filed.

The defendant duly filed exceptions to the findings and conclusions of fact contained in the report of the special referee. After hearing argument of counsel for both plaintiff and the defendant, and after a careful consideration of the testimony, I have reached the conclusion that the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is a valid contract, and that there were no false or fraudulent representations made by the plaintiff, or its agents, to the defendant, whereby he was induced to execute said contract and thereby become a member of the plaintiff association. I concur with the referee in his finding in this respect.

The statements alleged to have been made by plaintiff's agents were in the nature of future promises and expectations, and were not misstatements of any past or existing facts, upon which a charge of fraud might be founded. The rule is clearly stated in 12 Ruling Case Law, p. 224, as follows:

"As a general rule, in order to constitute actionable fraud a false representation must relate to a matter of fact, and such fact must be one which exists in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • United States v. Rock Royal Noyes v. Same Dairymen Leagueass v. Same Metropolitanmilk Producers Bargaining Agency v. Same 8212 828, CO-O
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1939
    ...Cal. 278, 208 P. 93; Oregon Growers Co-op. Asso. v. Lentz, 107 Or. 561, 212 P. 811; South Carolina Cotton Growers English, 135 S.C. 19, 133 S.E. 542; Milk Producers Marketing Co. v. Bell, 234 Ill.App. 222 and Barns v. Dairymen's Co-operative Association, Inc., 200 App.Div. 624, 222 N.Y.S. 2......
  • In re Dealer Management Systems Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-864
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • January 25, 2019
    ..., 672 F.Supp. 1489, 1521 (D.S.C. 1987), aff'd, 846 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1988) ); S.C. Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. English , 135 S.C. 19, 133 S.E. 542, 543 (1926) (looking to federal case law to construe South Carolina's antitrust statute). Because South Carolina has not enacted an 362 F.Su......
  • Liberty Warehouse Co v. Burley Tobacco Growers Marketing Ass, CO-OP
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1928
    ...Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n, 114 Ohio St. 361, 151 N. E. 471; South Carolina Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. English, 135 S. C. 19, 133 S. E. 542; Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Danville Warehouse Co., 144 Va. 456, 132 S. E. 482....
  • In re Wiring Device Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 331 (JBW). No. 79-C-3007 (JBW).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • September 29, 1980
    ...v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 71 S.C. 544, 51 S.E. 455 (1905); South Carolina Cotton Growers' Co-Op Ass'n v. English, 135 S.C. 19, 133 S.E. 542 (1926). Similarly, South Carolina's Attorney General has frequently pointed to federal case law in opinions on the legality of various trade p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • United States v. Rock Royal Noyes v. Same Dairymen Leagueass v. Same Metropolitanmilk Producers Bargaining Agency v. Same 8212 828, CO-O
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1939
    ...Cal. 278, 208 P. 93; Oregon Growers Co-op. Asso. v. Lentz, 107 Or. 561, 212 P. 811; South Carolina Cotton Growers English, 135 S.C. 19, 133 S.E. 542; Milk Producers Marketing Co. v. Bell, 234 Ill.App. 222 and Barns v. Dairymen's Co-operative Association, Inc., 200 App.Div. 624, 222 N.Y.S. 2......
  • In re Dealer Management Systems Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-864
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • January 25, 2019
    ..., 672 F.Supp. 1489, 1521 (D.S.C. 1987), aff'd, 846 F.2d 70 (4th Cir. 1988) ); S.C. Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. English , 135 S.C. 19, 133 S.E. 542, 543 (1926) (looking to federal case law to construe South Carolina's antitrust statute). Because South Carolina has not enacted an 362 F.Su......
  • Liberty Warehouse Co v. Burley Tobacco Growers Marketing Ass, CO-OP
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1928
    ...Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n, 114 Ohio St. 361, 151 N. E. 471; South Carolina Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. English, 135 S. C. 19, 133 S. E. 542; Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Danville Warehouse Co., 144 Va. 456, 132 S. E. 482....
  • In re Wiring Device Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 331 (JBW). No. 79-C-3007 (JBW).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • September 29, 1980
    ...v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 71 S.C. 544, 51 S.E. 455 (1905); South Carolina Cotton Growers' Co-Op Ass'n v. English, 135 S.C. 19, 133 S.E. 542 (1926). Similarly, South Carolina's Attorney General has frequently pointed to federal case law in opinions on the legality of various trade p......
  • 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