Heller, Hirsh & Co. v. Charleston Phosphate Co.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
This action was begun October 11,1887. The opinion makes a full statement of the case. The security stipulated for was only collateral to the main contract, and, like the penalty of a bond, was intended to secure the performance of the contract. 104 (I. S-, 90 ; 1 Bro. Oh., 418 ; 12 Ves., 282, 475. Here the defendants did the best they could, and offered security of the same general class (fertilizer material), and of far greater value.
Read the full summary
This action was begun October 11,1887. The opinion makes a full statement of the case. The security stipulated for was only collateral to the main contract, and, like the penalty of a bond, was intended to secure the performance of the contract. 104 (I. S-, 90 ; 1 Bro. Oh., 418 ; 12 Ves., 282, 475. Here the defendants did the best they could, and offered security of the same general class (fertilizer material), and of far greater value. The security offered was a substantial compliance with the agreement, and the judge should have so charged. A mere receipt may be explained by parol, but the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice McIver.
On May 21, 1886, plaintiffs and defendant entered into a written contract, whereby plaintiffs agreed to sell to defendant about 400 tons of brimstone upon the following terms, to wit, twenty-two 90-100 dollars per ton, defendant giving its note or notes at 90 days for the amount of the purchase money, “accompanied by warehouse receipts for acid phosphates or South Carolina rock, either or both, stored at buyer’s works, aggregating in value, at the lowest market price, the amount of said note or notes — said material to be held in…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Clinkscales v. North Carolina Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1942
- Wilson v. GregorySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1938