Willis v. Hammond

Citations

• 41 S.C. 153
• 19 S.E. 310
• 1894 S.C. LEXIS 99

Syllabus

<p>1. Evidence — Copy Letter. — There was no error in admitting in evidence a copy letter from plaintiff to defendant (the defendant having failed to produce it on demand), without proof of the mailing and delivery of the original, where the answer to such letter was produced.</p> <p>2. Evidence — Cross-Examination.—In action to recover a share in the profits made by defendant on a sale of his laud through plaintiff’s assistance, plaintiff testified that he had previously purchased a gold mine for defendant and had resold it at a profit, but, on objection made, was not permitted to testify as to a division of those profits. Held, that there was no error in permitting defendant to be interrogated on his -cross-examination as to this transaction.</p> <p>3. A Non-Suit cannot properly be ordered where there is some testimony tending to establish the plaintiff’s case as made in his pleadings; and there being some such testimony in this case, a non-suit was properly refused.</p> <p>4. Written Agreement — Parol Testimony. — A written agreement between A and B provided that “the former is authorized to sell the tract of land known as Saul’s tract, in Colleton County, containing 605 acres, for §10,000 cash, without rebate or discount, and second named party agrees to pay A, for buying and selling said 605 acres, §2,500, power of attorney given for this purpose and good for thirty days.” On same day B gave to A a power of attorney to sell this land. Held, that these two papers, construed together, show upon their face that they did not express the whole agreement between these parties, and the parol testimony showing that B furnished the purchase money, and A was to receive a share of the profits on the sale in consideration of his skill and services in procuring the purchase and sale of the land, and that the purchase was not completed for more than two months after the elate of this written agreement, the trial judge was right in declining to charge that the agreement was a