Young v. Cohen

• Decision Date: 12 September 1894
• Citation: 20 S.E. 62,42 S.C. 328
• Parties: YOUNG v. COHEN.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

20 S.E. 62

42 S.C. 328

YOUNG v. COHEN.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

September 12, 1894

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Union county; I. D Witherspoon, Judge.

Action by John L. Young against Philip M. Cohen to recover on a written contract. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

William Munro and Munro & Munro, for appellant.

Thomas S. Moorman, for respondent.

POPE J.

John L Young brought his action against Philip M. Cohen to recover $723.63, with interest thereon from January 1, 1890, under a contract in writing. Cohen, in his answer, admitted the contract, but denied that the work performed for him under the contract was reasonably worth the sum sued for. The cause came on for trial before Judge Witherspoon and a jury. The verdict was for plaintiff in the sum of $540. After entry of judgment, defendant appealed. The grounds are three in number, but, when analyzed, may be found to relate to one matter; namely, the refusal of the circuit judge to allow defendant to show by the duplicate of the contract with plaintiff, which plaintiff had placed in defendant's hands, that the original of said contract had been altered while in plaintiff's hands, to defendant's injury, to wit, in making defendant liable for $139.75, for plats of all the subdivisions of the four tracts of lands made by plaintiff as a surveyor under the contract with plaintiff. The original and duplicate of the contract, as exhibited before the circuit court at the trial, have been brought to the attention of this court, at the hearing before us. Certainly, alterations have been made, or, to state it mildly, the original does not agree with the duplicate, and there are erasures and interlineations in the original. The original was exhibited at the trial, having been introduced by the plaintiff himself. Defendant then asked leave to introduce the duplicate. This was at first allowed by the circuit judge, but he subsequently ruled out this testimony. When this was done, defendant asked leave to amend his answer, so as to set up the differences in the original and the duplicate, but this was denied by the circuit judge.

We wish to avoid saying anything harsh in this opinion touching these alterations in the "original" of the contract because they may have to be explained and commented on in the court below in case we grant a new trial; but we unhesitatingly say it was the duty of the circuit judge,...