Wakefield v. Spoon
| Decision Date | 01 March 1915 |
| Docket Number | 9009. |
| Parties | WAKEFIELD v. SPOON. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Anderson County; John S Wilson, Judge.
Action by T. T. Wakefield against P. E. Spoon. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Conditionally affirmed.
The exceptions are as follows:
Because it was error in the court to overrule the motion of the defendant for a new trial which was made on the grounds: (a) That the contract between the plaintiff and the Anderson Oil & Phosphate Company was allowed in evidence over the objection of the defendant. (b) Because the letters of the plaintiff to the defendant, introduced by the defendant showed clearly that the defendant was an agent of the plaintiff for the distribution of fertilizer at Iva. (c) And on the further ground that the interest included in the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was unlawful; there being no agreement in writing to pay any interest, and the plaintiff's complaint showing that he had sued on an open account unliquidated.
(2) Because the testimony, including the admissions of the plaintiff, shows clearly that this defendant had accounted to the plaintiff for all of the fertilizers he had sold as agent.
(3) Because the testimony of the plaintiff shows that the defendant had paid him everything that he owed him for fertilizers, either as agent or individual.
(4) It is respectfully submitted that it was error in the court to allow the note made by E. H. Simpson to Anderson Phosphate & Oil Company to be introduced in evidence in this case over the objection of the defendant, as the same was not relevant to the issues.
(5) It is respectfully submitted that the court was in error in allowing the witness, Mr. Vandiver, to answer the question the defendant having objected to this question.
(6) Because the testimony, both of the plaintiff and the defendant, shows that the plaintiff received $144 on the 21st of December, for which he did not give the defendant credit, and it is respectfully submitted that the defendant is entitled to credit for that amount.
(7) Because the testimony, both of the plaintiff and the defendant, shows that the plaintiff failed to give the defendant credit for $1,494.91, as shown by the checks introduced in evidence, payable to the plaintiff and indorsed by him.
(8) Because it was error in the court to refuse to admit in evidence the note and mortgage of L. F. Sherard to T. T. Wakefield, taken by this defendant to secure the payment of a note for fertilizer to the said Wakefield, as it is respectfully submitted that this was a circumstance competent to show the agency of the defendant.
(9) Because the court erred in allowing the testimony of E. H. Simpson and the introduction in evidence of Exhibit F, the note of the witness made to the Anderson Oil & Phosphate Company, as the same had nothing to do with the issues between the plaintiff and the defendant.
Julius E. Boggs, of Easley, and A. H. Dagnall, of Anderson, for appellant.
Bonham, Watkins & Allen, of Anderson, for respondent.
When this cause was tried on circuit, the late and lamented Julius E. Boggs appeared for the defendant. In this court the appearance is by Mr. Dagnall; and that gentleman asked for a serious consideration of the cause because of Mr. Boggs' illness at the trial.
The action is for the purchase price, and interest thereon, of commercial fertilizers, alleged to have been sold by plaintiff to defendant during the years 1909 and 1910, and on an alleged promise by defendant to pay therefor on the 1st of November of each of the said years. The defendant denied that he had bought fertilizers, but that he sold them to farmers for the plaintiff for a commission on the price. He further alleged that he had fully accounted with plaintiff, and he owed him nothing. The jury found for the plaintiff $1,688.81 principal and $442.23 interest thereon. The defendant appeals, and has made nine exceptions. Let them be reported. They shall not be considered in order, and some of them not at all. We shall follow the argument of Mr. Dagnall.
The major issue of fact below was the character of the contract betwixt the parties: Was it that of vendor and vendee, or was it that of principal and agent? The jury found the fact for the plaintiff, and that concludes the issue, unless the jury was furnished incompetent and hurtful testimony, or was denied competent and helpful testimony. The appellant charges by exception that such testimony was admitted, and such testimony was denied.
The argument at bar stressed the illegal admission of the contract betwixt the plaintiff and the Anderson Phosphate & Oil Company. That contract was plainly incompetent as res inter alios acta. But it was admitted by the court to show by its terms, that when the products of the Anderson Company were sold by anybody on a credit, and notes were made therefor (as in the case at bar), such notes of any purchaser should name therein as payee the Anderson Company. And the inference to be drawn from that practice was that the simple...
To continue reading
Request your trial