Taylor v. Cecil's, Inc., 17143

• Decision Date: 10 April 1956
• Docket Number: No. 17143,17143
• Citation: 229 S.C. 182,92 S.E.2d 268
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: James R. TAYLOR, trading and doing business as Taylor's Plumbing & Heating, Respondent, v. CECIL'S, Incorporated, et al., of which the Trustees of Spartanburg County School District Number Two, are Appellants.

Page 268

92 S.E.2d 268

229 S.C. 182

James R. TAYLOR, trading and doing business as Taylor's

Plumbing & Heating, Respondent, v. CECIL'S, Incorporated, et al., of which the Trustees of

Spartanburg County School District Number Two, are

Appellants.

No. 17143.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

April 10, 1956.

Arnold R. Merchant, Spartanburg, for appellants.

Sam R. Watt, T. E. Walsh, Means & Browne, Kerr & Evins, Holcombe & Bomar, Spartanburg, for respondent.

STUKES, Chief Justice.

Plaintiff brought this action against Cecils, Incorporated, against the Trustees of Spartanburg County School District No. 2 and against National Surety Corporation. It was alleged in the complaint that Cecil's contracted to construct a school building for the District; the Surety Corporation issued its performance bond in the penal sum of $232,000; plaintiff was the sub-contractor for the heating and plumbing in the amount of $40,355.20, of which $8,474.15 is unpaid after demand upon Cecil's. Prayer was for judgment against the defendants in the sum of the alleged unpaid balance of the amount of the subcontract.

The Trustees answered that they have paid the prime contractor, Cecil's, the full contract price, but the work referred to in the complaint was not authorized, approved or accepted by them and is unsatisfactory, has been refused by them and by the State Finance Commission, wherefore they prayed dismissal of the complaint as to them.

Cecil's answered, admitting the contract in the amount of $232,000, and that changes and additions were made at the direction of the Trustees for an additional contract price of $14,594.68, which latter amount has not been paid, although demanded, and the Trustees have accepted the building; the plaintiff-subcontractor has been paid the subcontract price and also $1,870.48 on account of changes which were authorized by the Trustees, but the latter are still owing Cecil's $14,594.68 for the changes and additions. The answer further pleaded performance of the contract and additions and that the building has been accepted by the Trustees. It was also alleged that Montgomery & Crawford Company, Inc., and Noland Company, Incorporated, claim unpaid balances in specified amounts for materials furnished plaintiff, whereby it was prayed that those corporations be impleaded and made parties, and judgment was demanded against the trustees in the amount of $14,594.63.

Montgomery and Crawford Company, Inc., and Noland Company, Incorporated, were made parties-defendant by order of the court and allowed to answer or other wise plead. Sections 10-219 and 10-707, Code of 1952.

The Trustees 'answered' the answer of Cecil's denying that any balance was due the latter and denying that any additions to the contract were authorized or accepted by them, and reiterating that the work of plaintiff was unsatisfactory and had been refused by them and by the State Finance Commission.

Montgomery and Crawford Company, Inc., answered and counterclaimed, and prayed judgment against plaintiff, against Cecil's, against the Trustees and the Surety Corporation in the sum of $3,302.37 for materials furnished plaintiff and used by him in the construction of the building, and itemized and verified statement of account was attached to the answer.

The Trustees 'answered' the answer and counterclaim of Montgomery & Crawford Company, Inc., by, in effect, denying the allegations of them.

Cecil's filed an 'answer' to the counterclaim of Montgomery & Crawford Company, Inc., wherein the material allegations of it were denied.

Noland Company, Incorporated, also answered and counterclaimed for the amount of an account for materials furnished by it to plaintiff and used in the construction of the building, but this defendant has since been paid in full and no longer has any interest in the controversy.

Reply was filed by plaintiff to the counterclaim of Montgomery & Crawford Company, Inc., claiming errors in the latter's account, of which strict proof was demanded; and further that discounts were promised on plaintiff's purchases of materials for this building and three other buildings, which discounts had not been credited and they would more than offset the amount of the account; the prayer of the reply concluded as follows: 'that the counterclaim of the defendant, Montgomery & Crawford Company, Inc., against this plaintiff be dismissed and...