Case Name: McCOWN-CLARK COMPANY v. MULDROW
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1921-04-13
Citations: 116 S.C. 54
Docket Number: No. 10609
Parties: McCOWN-CLARK COMPANY v. MULDROW
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Watts, concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 54–64

Head Matter:
No. 10609
McCOWN-CLARK COMPANY v. MULDROW
(106 S. E. 771)
1. Sales — Buyer Not Regiuired to Minimize Damage by Buying in the . Market When Goods Not Obtainable. — A buyer injured by the seller’s failure to deliver, must minimize his loss by going into the market and purchasing other goods to supply his needs, but, when the season has passed and he cannot procure the needed goods, the rule does not apply.
2. Sales — Evidence of Difference in Fertilized and Unfertilized Crops Held Admissible on Question of Damages For Nondelivery. —When a buyer of fertilizer could not procure other fertilizer on the seller”® failure to deliver, evidence as to the differences between the crop on which the fertilizer; was to be used and fertilized crops on adjoining landj of similiar quality worked in the same way was admissible.
3. Appeal and Error — Allowance of Interest Not Reviewable When Not Raised in Trial Court. — Where no question was raised in the trial, court as to the allowance of interest on the account sued on, such question cannot be considered in the Supreme Court.
Before PfuriFoy, J., Florence, April term, 1919.'
Reversed and new trial ordered:
Action by McCown-Clarke Company against A. W. Muldrow. From judgment for plaintiff the defendant appeals.
Messrs. Whiting and Baker for appellant,
cite: Rule for estimating damages caused by breach of contract: Ann- Cas. 1917 B. 1192. Sutherland on Damages, Vol. 2, 2339, 2348; .56 Am. Rep. 52 (Ala.;) 37 Am. St. Rep. 611 (N. C.;) 159 N. C. 439; 27 Am. Rep. 13 (N. Y.;) 13 Am. Rep. 438; 20 Am. Rep. 425; 40 Am. Rep. 280 (Texas;) 42 Am. St. Rep. 125 (Cal.;) 92 Am. St. Rep. 443 (Mich.;) 93 Am. St. Rep. 474 (Neb.) No interest should have been allowed: 100 S C. 100.
Messrs. Arrowsmith, Muldrow, Bridges & Hicks, for respondent,
cite: Measure of damages for breach of contract to deliver personal property for a market price: 100 S. C. 359; 92 S. C. 114; 91 S. C. 417; 88 S. C. 572; 81 S. C. 181; 75 S. C. 343; 68 S. C. 363. Points not'raised or considered on circuit are not properly before this Court for review: 25 S. C. 436; 25 S. C. 476; 28 S. C. 38; 29 S. C. 491; 30 S. C. 539; 31 S. C. 389; 40 S. C. 337; 41 S. C. 29; 41 S. C. 74; 27 S. C. 215; 27 S. C. 331; 105 S. C. 100; 103 S. C. 75; 86 S. C. 217; 101 S. C. 299; 101 S. C. 493. Record must .show that point was made before the Circuit Judge: 32 S. C. 87; 83 S. C. 396; 94 S. C.'324.
April 13, 1921.

Opinion:
The opinion,of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
The facts in this case involved in this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff sold and delivered to the defendant a quantity of fertilizers. The fertilizers were to have been delivered in March for immediate use. The fertilizers were not delivered until June. The defendant, by answer, set up the failure to deliver in the contract time and damages caused by the delay. The defendant offered to show the difference between the crops, made on adjoining land of similar quality, worked in the same way and with the same seasons, on which the fertilizers were used in March, and the yield on his land on which the delayed fertilizers were used. The trial Judge excluded the testimony on the ground that the measure of damages was the difference between the contract price and the price at the time of delivery-specified in the contract.
I. To this ruling exception was taken. The general rule is beyond question, but it does not apply to' this case. ' It is well settled that when the reason of the rule fails the rule does not apply. One who suffers injury from the violation of his contract must minimize his loss by going into the iriarket and purchasing other goods to supply his needs. When, however, the season has passed and in jured party to the contract cannot procure the needed goods, the reason of the rule does not apply, and the rule is not applicable. The allegation is that the defendant could not procure the fertilizer when needed, and he could not minimize his loss. The testimony offered eliminated the uncertainty usual in such cases, and should have been admitted. The exception that raises this question is sustained.
II. The second question is as to the allowance of interest on the account. The record does not show that this question was raised in the trial Court, and it cannot be considered.
The judgment is reversed and a new trial ordered.
Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Watts, concur.