Wells v. Holman

• Decision Date: 12 March 1921
• Docket Number: (No. 10585.)
• Citation: 106 S.E. 224
• Parties: WELLS. v. HOLMAN.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

106 S.E. 224

WELLS.

v.HOLMAN.

(No. 10585.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 12, 1921.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Sumter County; Mendel L. Smith, Special Judge.

Action by F. A. Wells against Dr. F. K. Holman. From an order granting plaintiff the right to inspect certain books of the defendant, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The order referred to in the opinion was as follows:

This order is passed pursuant to a motion duly noted and made before me on behalf of the plaintiff, who seeks to procure an inspection and copy, or permission to take a copy, of the books, papers, and documents in the possession of or under the control of the defendant, the same being those kept by the defendant showing the farming operations and the mercantile operations, the storage and sale of cotton which was raised or purchased during the years 1914 and 1915. After hearing argument for and against this motion, I am convinced that in the exercise of my discretion the said motion should be granted.

It is therefore ordered that the defendant, F. K. Holman. do, within five days from the date of this order, give to the attorneys for the plaintiff an inspection and copy, or the opportunity and permission to take a copy, of such hooks, documents, and papers as are in the possession of or under the control of the defendant, or his attorney, that show the farming operations and the mercantile operations out of which the plaintiff was to have a percentage of the net profits for the years 1914 and 1915. including such as show the sales and other disposition of the produce raised and purchased in connection with said farming and mercantile transactions for said years; in other words, both the complaint and answer having alleged that the plaintiff was to have a certain percentage from the net profits from the farming operations and mercantile operations, including the net profits realized from the share croppers and from the purchase and sale of cotton for the years 1914 and 1915, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to such inspection of the books, documents, and papers made by or for the defendant in the ordinary course of such farming and mercantile operations, showing the facts and figures upon which a settlement between them would necessarily be based, and not such papers as would be of a purely private nature, but rather those partaking of the nature of mutual entries of account showing the items necessarily relevant in a bona fide settlement between the parties.

The second part of the motion with regard to any possible refusal of the defendant to comply with this order will not be passed upon now, as I hold it would more properly come up when some exigency demands it.

Marion W. Seabrook, of Sumter, for appellant.

Eaymon Schwartz and Epps & Levy, all of Sumter, for respondent.

GARY, C. J. For the reasons assigned by his honor the circuit judge, the order made by him is affirmed.

WATTS and ERASER, JJ., concur.

COTHRAN, J. I concur in the judgment affirming the order of the circuit judge, but, as the appeal raises squarely the issue whether or not the documentary evidence to an inspection of which a moving party may be entitled under section 427 of the Code is limited to such as the adverse party expects to use on the trial of the case, and does not include such as the moving party may desire to obtain from his adversary for his own use, I think that this issue should be determined.

In ...