Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Moore
| Decision Date | 17 July 1901 |
| Citation | 39 S.E. 346,61 S.C. 166 |
| Parties | VIRGINIA-CAROLINA CHEMICAL CO. v. MOORE et al. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Spartanburg county Buchanan, Judge.
Action by the Virginia-Carolina Chemical Company against Moore & Hughes. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed.
D. E Hydrick and Stanyarne Wilson, for appellants .
J. T Johnson, for respondent.
This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover from the defendants the sum of $198.50, the same being the price of 10 tons of Globe fertilizer ordered by the defendants, and delivered to them by the plaintiff, in pursuance of a contract in writing, a copy of which is appended to the complaint as a part thereof, and marked "Exhibit A." The defendants by their answer admitted the allegations of the complaint and for a defense set up as a counterclaim an agreement with the plaintiff, through its agent, Iredell Jones, Jr., through whom the contract (Exhibit A), set up as a part of their complaint, had been made, that they, the defendants, should be the sole agents for the sale of plaintiff's commercial fertilizer for the year 1896 at Duncans, S. C., and the vicinity thereof; that none of its goods would be sold or shipped to any other person or persons at that point, or in the vicinity thereof; and that such agreement was the main inducement to defendants to enter into the contract (Exhibit A). It is also alleged in the answer that the plaintiff, in violation of its said agreement with defendants to make them the sole agents for the sale of plaintiff's fertilizers at Duncans, shipped and sold, and allowed its agents to ship and sell, to other persons at said point, and in the vicinity thereof, its fertilizers, whereby defendants suffered loss and damage to the amount of $153.50; and that the defendants consent that plaintiff may have judgment for the difference between the amount claimed in the complaint and the amount set up as a counterclaim. The plaintiff replied, denying all the allegations upon which the counterclaim is based. The case being thus at issue came on for trial before his honor, Judge Buchanan, and a jury, and the defendants, having admitted on the record plaintiff's case, claimed and were allowed the right to open and reply. When the defendants offered testimony tending to prove the agreement set out in their answer, such testimony was objected to by plaintiff, and the objection was sustained.
The ground of the objections and the reason for the rulings made seem to have been that, inasmuch as the plaintiff based its action upon a contract in writing, it was not competent for defendants to introduce any parol testimony tending to contradict or vary the terms of the written contract. There can be no doubt that the rule as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Loan & Exchange Bank v. Tolbert
...parol evidence is admissible to establish an independent and collateral agreement not inconsistent with the writing. In Chemical Co. v. Moore, 61 S.C. 166, 39 S.E. 346, plaintiff sued upon a written contract for the sale of certain fertilizers to the defendant. The defendant set up a counte......
-
Gladden v. Keistler
... ... contention: Ashe v. Railway Co., 65 S.C. 134, 43 ... S.E. 393; Chemical Co. v. Moore, 61 S.C. 166, 39 ... S.E. 346; Sloan v. Courtenay, 54 S.C. 314, 32 S.E ... 431; ... ...
-
Knighton v. Des Portes Mercantile Co.
...a separate and independent contract between the parties, contemporaneous and not inconsistent with the deed. In Chemical Co. v. Moore, 61 S.C. 166, 39 S.E. 346, plaintiff sued upon a contract in writing for the sale of certain fertilizer. The defendant set up as a counterclaim the breach by......
-
In re Knight
...for the purpose of showing a contemporaneous independent agreement entered into between the parties.") (citing Chem. Co. v. Moore, 61 S.C. 166, 39 S.E. 346 (1901)); Willis v. Hammond, 19 S.E. 310, 314 (S.C. 1894) ("[U]nless the contract . . . was a complete unity, and therefore did not need......