Walker v. W., C. & A. Railroad

Citations

• 26 S.C. 80
• 1 S.E. 366
• 1887 S.C. LEXIS 7

Syllabus

<p>1. A contract having been made with a railroad corporation, after which the railroad was sold out and the purchasers formed a new corporation, but the contract was carried on without change, it was competent to prove, in action against the new company for breach of this contract, what the original agreement was, and then, that it had been acted upon by plaintiff and adopted by the defendant.</p> <p>2. And there being some testimony upon these points, the trial judge properly refused a non-suit, and submitted to the jury the question whether the defendant had recognized and continued this contract with its predecessor.</p> <p>3. If improper testimony is received, it is not ground for new trial where the jury are instructed to disregard it; for that, practically, is striking out such testimony from the case. •</p> <p>4. A corporation is bound by proper contracts entered into by its agents. A regulation of the company forbidding its agents to make any contract is not binding upon a stranger who has no notice of this regulation.</p> <p>5. A verbal contract that rests wholly on a contingency and may be terminated at any time, is not an agreement not to be performed within a year, and therefore void under the statute of frauds. This ease distinguished from Jones v. McMichael, 12 Rich., 176.</p> <p>6. If a parol agreement is obnoxious to the statute of frauds, still one party cannot avail himself of this statute after accepting the full performance of the agreement by the other.</p>