Tisdale v. Kerr McGee Chemical Corp., No. 20153
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | LITTLEJOHN; LEWIS, C.J., NESS and GREGORY, JJ., and JOSEPH R. MOSS |
| Citation | 221 S.E.2d 531,266 S.C. 64 |
| Parties | Eliose T. TISDALE, Respondent, v. KERR McGEE CHEMICAL CORPORATION and McNair Seed Company, Appellants. |
| Docket Number | No. 20153 |
| Decision Date | 22 January 1976 |
Page 531
v.
KERR McGEE CHEMICAL CORPORATION and McNair Seed Company, Appellants.
C. Dexter Powers, Wright, Scott, Blackwell & Powers, Florence, and LaNue Floyd, Kingstree, for appellants.
[266 S.C. 65] Allen C. Pate, and George W. Keels, Florence, for respondent.
LITTLEJOHN, Justice:
This breach of warranty action was brought in the Williamsburg County Civil Court by Eloise Tisdale (plaintiff) against defendants, Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation (Kerr-McGee) and McNair Seed Company (McNair), to recover actual damages
Page 532
of $8,091.75, allegedly suffered as a consequence of purchasing 140 bags of defective soybean seed from Kerr-McGee. Kerr-McGee, a retailer, had purchased them from McNair, a wholesaler.Upon trial of the case, the jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $4,068.51. Defendants have appealed, alleging error by the trial judge in refusing their motions for nonsuit, directed verdict and judgment n.o.v.
We are of the opinion that the trial judge properly overruled the motions and affirm the verdict of the lower court. The sole issue before us is whether the evidence made issues of fact for the jury, or only questions of law for the judge.
Plaintiff alleged that the seed she purchased were defective in that they failed to germinate, as represented by defendants, requiring plaintiff to purchase other seed and replant, which planting produced a short crop.
The answers amounted to a general denial. In addition, the answers alleged misuse of the seed, that poor farming techniques were used, and that plaintiff's loss resulted from an Act of God. They specifically denied a breach of warranty.
[266 S.C. 66] The evidence discloses that McNair sold two lots of soybean seed to Kerr-McGee in 1970. In April of 1971, Kerr-McGee sold 100 fifty-pound bags of these seed to the plaintiff for planting. Her son, who operated her farm, planted them in May of 1971. By June, a 'stand' of soybeans had not sprouted and come up in a normal fashion. It was the testimony of plaintiff's son that only about 10% Of the seed had germinated.
Plaintiff bought 40 additional fifty-pound bags of seed from Kerr-McGee in June. She and her son both testified that they also bought seed from another source in June, which were used in replanting 120 acres that month. Defendants attempted to discredit plaintiff on this point, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hutson v. Cummins Carolinas, Inc., No. 0086
...unless the record fails to disclose any evidence which reasonably supports the jury's verdict. Tisdale v. Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation, 266 S.C. 64, 221 S.E.2d 531 (1976). It is therefore our task to review the record of the trial court and [280 S.C. 556] determine whether there is any e......
-
Willis v. Floyd Brace Co., Inc., No. 0004
...in the record which would reasonably support the contentions of the party prevailing at trial. Tisdale v. Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation, 266 S.C. 64, 221 S.E.2d 531 (1976). It was further stated in Bell v. Harrington Manufacturing Company, 265 S.C. 468, 219 S.E.2d 906, 908 It is well esta......
-
Moran v. Jones, No. 0140
...and determining the weight it is to be given are functions of the jury, not this Court. Tisdale v. Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation, 266 S.C. 64, 221 S.E.2d 531 (1976); Davenport, by his G/A/L, et al. v. Walker, S.C.App. 313 S.E.2d 354 (1982). This principle applies to contradictions in the ......
-
Doe v. Asbury, No. 0139
...[281 S.C. 194] would reasonably support the contentions of the party prevailing at trial. Tisdale v. Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation, 266 S.C. 64, 221 S.E.2d 531 (1976); Willis v. Floyd Brace Co., Inc., 309 S.E.2d 295 (S.C.App.1983). Judging the credibility of the testimony of witnesses is ......
-
Hutson v. Cummins Carolinas, Inc., No. 0086
...unless the record fails to disclose any evidence which reasonably supports the jury's verdict. Tisdale v. Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation, 266 S.C. 64, 221 S.E.2d 531 (1976). It is therefore our task to review the record of the trial court and [280 S.C. 556] determine whether there is any e......
-
Willis v. Floyd Brace Co., Inc., No. 0004
...in the record which would reasonably support the contentions of the party prevailing at trial. Tisdale v. Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation, 266 S.C. 64, 221 S.E.2d 531 (1976). It was further stated in Bell v. Harrington Manufacturing Company, 265 S.C. 468, 219 S.E.2d 906, 908 It is well esta......
-
Moran v. Jones, No. 0140
...and determining the weight it is to be given are functions of the jury, not this Court. Tisdale v. Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation, 266 S.C. 64, 221 S.E.2d 531 (1976); Davenport, by his G/A/L, et al. v. Walker, S.C.App. 313 S.E.2d 354 (1982). This principle applies to contradictions in the ......
-
Doe v. Asbury, No. 0139
...[281 S.C. 194] would reasonably support the contentions of the party prevailing at trial. Tisdale v. Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation, 266 S.C. 64, 221 S.E.2d 531 (1976); Willis v. Floyd Brace Co., Inc., 309 S.E.2d 295 (S.C.App.1983). Judging the credibility of the testimony of witnesses is ......