Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1925

J. B. Colt Co. v. Finley

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided January 5, 1925 · Cothran, Messrs, Watts, Eraser, Marion, Gary

126 S.E. 47; 130 S.C. 424; 1925 S.C. LEXIS 12 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. Robinson Mann , for appellant, cite: Parol evidence: 124 S.C. 211 ; 126 S.C. 205 ; 123 S.E., 845 ; 120 S.C. 375 ; 115 S.C. 426 . Fraud: 50 S.C. 397 ; 69 S.C. 87 . Messrs. Craig Keith , for respondent, cite: Parol or extrinsic evidence: 118 S.C. 368 : Abbott's Proof of Facts (4th Ed.), 641-2; 22 C.J., Secs. 1621, 1623; 111 S.C. 37 ; 71 S.C. 150 ; 68 S.C. 106 . Agency: 117 S.E., 594 . 97 S.C. 150 ; 122 S.E., 388 ; 2 C.J., Sec. 731. Directed verdict: 13 C.J., Sec. 991; 78 S.C. 419 .

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

This case is practically “on all fours” with the case of Colt Co. v. Britt (S. C.), 123 S. E., 845, and is controlled by the decision in that case.

The only observable difference between the two. cases is that in the Britt Case evidence of a collateral contract for installation was excluded, while here the contract was offered in evidence by the plaintiff. The contract is not connected up with the plaintiff in any way; in fact it is not connected up with any one, as it shows upon its face that it could not be a valid contract until accepted by the contractor who was to undertake the installation. The motion of the plaintiff for a directed verdict should have been granted.

The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed, and that the case be remanded to that Court for the purpose of entering judgment in favor of the plaintiff under Rule 27.

Messrs. Justices Watts, Eraser and Marion concur. Mr. Chief Justice Gary did not participate.

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