Southern States Phosphate Co v. Arthurs

• Decision Date: 22 April 1914
• Docket Number: (No. 8818.)
• Citation: 81 S.E. 663,97 S.C. 358
• Parties: SOUTHERN STATES PHOSPHATE CO. v. ARTHURS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

(97 S.C. 358)

81 S.E. 663

SOUTHERN STATES PHOSPHATE CO.

v.ARTHURS.

(No. 8818.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

April 22, 1914.

1. Appeal and Erhob (§ 883*) — Decisions Reviewable—Judgments by Consent.

Defendant's consent to a verdict, after the court had ruled that he could not introduce evidence in support of his defense, was not voluntary so as to deprive him of his right to review such ruling on appeal.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 3611; Dec. Dig. § 883.*]

2. Evidence (§ 437*)—Actions foe Price-Defenses.

Under Civ. Code 1912, § 2322, requiring every bag, barrel, or other package of fertilizers offered for sale or delivered after sale to have thereon a label or stamp setting forth the weight and chemical composition of its contents and the minimum percentage of specified ingredients guaranteed to be present, and a label giving the grade thereof, as high grade, low grade, or standard; and section 2329, providing that any vendor of commercial fertilizers whose goods shall fall short in commercial value guaranteed by the analysis appearing thereon when delivered shall be liable to the purchaser for the same per centum and selling price as the goods have fallen short, if fertilizers sold did not come up to weight and guaranteed analysis and were not actually delivered in kind according to contract, recitals, in a note for the purchase price as to the weight, that each sack bore the guaranteed analysis and inspector's tag, and in all respects complied with the law, and that theseller had neither impliedly nor expressly warranted the effects thereof on crops and an agreement therein that the buyer could not hold the seller responsible for practical results, were attempts to dispense with the statutory requirements and void, and did not preclude parol evidence of the noncompliance with statute.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 2025-2029; Dec. Dig. § 437.*]

Hydrick, J., dissenting.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Aiken County; Geo. W. Gage, Judge.

Action by the Southern States Phosphate Company against John T. Arthurs. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

G. L. Toole & Son, of Aiken, for appellant.

Gunter & Gyles, of Aiken, for respondent.

GARY, C. J. This is an action on a promisory note, executed by the defendant on the 23d of March, 1908, a copy of which is as follows: "$198.00. On the first day of October next, fixed, I promise to pay to the Southern States Phosphate & Fertilizer Co., or bearer, one hundred and ninety-eight and 00-100 dollars. This note was given for value received in fertilizers furnished by said company, being for (90) ninety sacks of 200 pound each, known as 10 sx Acid 8x4, 10 Kanit, 20 high grade and 50 sx standard. * * * I hereby acknowledge that at the time of delivery to me, each sack of this fertilizer bore the manufacturer's guaranteed analysis of its contents, and also the inspector's tag, and that in all respects, the laws of the state have been complied with; and that the sellers of these fertilizers, have neither impliedly nor expressly warranted the effects of them on crops, and I therefore agree, that I cannot hold the said Southern States Phosphate & Fertilizer Co. responsible in any way for practical results."

The defendant denied the allegations of the complaint and set up the following as a defense: "The defendant alleges that he did not receive valuable...