Case ID: scl_20/html/0297-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Harper J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Leonard Dozier v. William Johnston.
    
      Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Williamsburg, Fall Term, 1833.
    Assumpsit on an account for lumber. The defendant con-traded with the plaintiff, who is the owner of a saw mill, for a quantity of sawed lumber of a particular description. The plaintiff sawed the lumber accordingly, and soon after gave the defendant notice that it was ready. The defendant said he would remove it shortly, and the plaintiff, at his request, piled i t up and covered it with slabs. The mill was afterwards burnt and the lumber consumed.
    lumber for tile d®,f™dta0nt and afterwards req^cf/'of1 Sc and ,bo burnt: mu, aft ana that the del a‘jír¿ant was ll"
    The defendant contended that there had been no delivery, and consequently he was not liable. The presiding judge charged differently, but the jury found for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed, and moves for a new trial.
    
      Dunkin, for the motion,
    cited 2 Starkie, 608.
    
      Cohen, contra.
   Harper J.

We concur with the presiding judge, that there was sufficient evidence of the delivery of the lumber. The authority relied on by the plaintiff’s counsel, in argument, sustains his position. In the case of Garret v. Moss, (if I recollect the title rightly) decided by us at Columbia, where the defendant had bid off, I think, a horse, at public auction, and directed the seller to take him home and keep him ’till called for, we held, that the seller, in taking him according to the request, was the agent of the buyer, and that this amounted to a sufficient delivery.

The motion is granted-

JOHNSON, J. concurred.