Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1919

Standard Boiler & Plate Iron Co. v. Brock

Standard Boiler & Plate Iron Co. v. Brock
Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided June 24, 1919 · Watts
99 S.E. 769; 112 S.C. 323; 1919 S.C. LEXIS 113 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. S.M. Wolfe and E.L. Herndon , for appellant, cite: As to the law of agency express or implied: 2d Corpus Juris, p. 4371; 2d Corpus Juris, paragraph 30, subd. B; 2d Corpus Juris, subd. D, page 43, and cases cited; footnote 79, p. 436. Mr. R.T. Jaynes , for respondent.

Standard Boiler & Plate Iron Co. v. Brock

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This was an action to recover a balance of $130, alleged to be due by defendant to plaintiff, on account for one two-compartment oil storage tank and steel structural supports, sold by the plaintiff to defendant for the sum of $530, and on which a payment was made of $400 prior to the commencement of the action. Defendant pleads a failure of consideration. The cause was tried before Judge Peurifoy and a jury at the Mar.ch term of Court, 1918, for Oconee county, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant. At the conclusion of the testimony, plaintiff’s counsel moved for a directed verdict on behalf of plaintiff, which was refused. After entry of judgment, plaintiff appealed, and alleged error in refusing to direct verdict as moved for, and from the Court’s refusal tO' charge plaintiff’s request.

*329 1-3 The exception cannot be sustained. The first request was covered by his Honor in his general charge. His Honor charged fully the law applicable to the case, and we think his charge was free from error. The plaintiff might have furnished an exact duplicate of those built by itself by the same company, and yet it might have been defective, and we see no error on the part of his Honor as complained of.

The exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed. .

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.