City of Orangeburg v. BUFORD

The evidence which the trial Judge excluded, upon objection by respondent, did not vary or contradict the terms of the lease, but was in explanation of “approximately 25 feet.” This testimony should have been admitted as it was competent to show the most advantageous and profitable use of appellant’s land.

The facts of this case do not justify or call for the application of the general rule as contained in those cases cited by Mr. Justice Oxner, to wit, Ex parte Moore, 161 S. C. 107, 159 S. E. 503; Peoples National Bank of Greenville v. Upchurch, 183 S. C. 147, 190 S. E. 515, 518. This…