Ober v. Blalock

Citations

• 40 S.C. 31
• 18 S.E. 264
• 1893 S.C. LEXIS 16

Syllabus

<p>1. Corporate Capacity — Issue—Right to Sue. — Where the complaint alleged that the plaintiff was a corporation of Maryland, and competent to sue in the courts of this State, a general denial does not put in issue plaintiff’s capacity to sue, and its right to make a contract in this State, which is thereby put in issue, follows from plaintiff’s corporate existence.</p> <p>2. Written Contracts — Charge on Facts. — It is the duty of the judge to construe a written contract, and his remarks on'facts in issue made to counsel in the hearing of the jury while so construing it, are not in violation of the constitutional inhibition as to charging on facts; especially so, where the charge afterwards made to the jury properly submitted all these questions for their determination.</p> <p>3. Evidence. — Under the statute which makes the board of trustees of Olemson College the keeper of all records of the Department of Agriculture, an analysis of a fertilizer made by the chemist of that department, and properly on file, may be introduced in evidence after identification by the president of such board of trustees.</p> <p>4. Sales — warranty.—Under a contract to sell a certain brand of fertilizers at a sound price, the seller expressly warrants the article .sold to contain the ingredients of that particular brand, but no warranty can be implied that the article will produce good results.</p> <p>5. Oases Criticised. — -This case distinguished from cases in which the express warranty mentions the title only, or warrants results from the use of the article sold.</p>