Munroe v. Williams

Citations

• 35 S.C. 572
• 15 S.E. 279
• 1892 S.C. LEXIS 210

Syllabus

<p>1. Non-Suit. — There having been some testimony tending to establish the material allegations of the complaint, the sufficiency of the testimony should have been submitted to the jury, and therefore a non-suit was improper.</p> <p>2. Ibid. — Evidence.—Principal and Agent. — Where a partnership sues on a written contract made with one of its members, alleging in its complaint that the party named was known by defendants to have been acting for plaintiffs, and oral testimony tending to prove this allegation was received without objection, a non-suit on the ground that the written agreement could not be varied by parol was improper, as a contract made by one person can be shown by competent evidence to have been made for the benefit of another.</p> <p>3. Ibid. — Partnership.—Amendment.—The failure to allege the partnership of plaintiffs in the complaint must be objected to by demurrer, and cannot properly be raised on motion for non-suit. If the objection is raised by demurrer, an amendment permitting the necessary allegation should be allowed.</p> <p>4. Ibid. — Election op Remedies. — Where a contract for the sale of lumber reserves the title in plaintiffs until paid for, and plaintiffs sue to recover the contract price, and also on a quantum meruit, a non-suit on the ground that the contract cannot be enforced in this form of action should not he granted, as the plaintiffs could elect to sue for the debt without enforcing their mortgage, and, moreover, tho objection has no application to the second cause of action.</p>