Case Name: WELLS v. HOLMAN
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1921-03-12
Citations: 115 S.C. 443
Docket Number: 10585
Parties: WELLS v. HOLMAN.
Judges: Mr. Justice Watts and Mr, Justice Eraser concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 115
Pages: 443–448

Head Matter:
10585
WELLS v. HOLMAN.
(106 S. E. 224)
Discovery — Plaintiff can Inspect Books of Operations Necessary to Determine his Share in the Resulting Profits. — Where it was admitted that plaintiff had a right under a contract to a share in the farming and mercantile operations of defendant for specified years, he is entitled to an order permitting him to inspect such books and papers in the possession of the defendant or under his control which show the net profits of defendant from such transactions.
Before Mendel L. Smith, Special Judge, Sumter, April, 1920.
Affirmed.
Action by F. A: Wells against Dr. F.K. Holman. From order requiring the defendant to produce his books and papers, the defendant appeals.
The order referred to in the .opinion was as follows:
This order is passed pursuant to a motion duly noted and made me on behalf of the plaintiff, who seeks to procure an inspection and copy, or permission to take a copy, of the books, papers, and documents in the possession of or under the control of the defendant, the same' being those kept by the defendant showing the farming operations' and the mercantile operations, the storage and sale of cotton which was raised or purchased during the years 1914 and 1915. After hearing argument for and against this motion, I am convinced that in the exercise of my discretion the said motion should be granted.
It is therefore ordered that the defendant, F. K. Holman, do, within five days from the date of this order, give to the attorneys for the plaintiff an inspection and copy, or the opportunity and permission to take a copy of such books, documents and papers as are in the possession of or under the control of the defendant, or his attorney, that show the farming operations and the mercantile operations out of which the plaintiff was to have a percentage of the net profits for the years 1914 and 1915, including such as show the sales and other disposition of the produce raised and purchased in connection with said farming and mercantile transactions for said years; in other words, both the complaint and answer having alleged that the plaintiff was to have a certain percentage from the net profits from.the farming operations and mercantile operations, including the net profits realized from the share croppers and from the purchase and sale of cotton for the years 1914 and 1915, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to such inspection of the books, documents and papers made by or for the defendants in the or dinary course of such farming, and mercantile operations, showing the facts and figures upon which a settlement between them would necessarily be based, and not such papers as would be of a purely private nature, but rather those partaking of the nature of mutual entries of account showing the items necessarily relevant in a bona fide, settlement between the parties.
The second part of the motion with regard to' any possible refusal of the defendant to comply with this order will not be passed upon now, as I hold it would more properly come up when some exigency demands it.
Marion W. Seabrook, Esq., for appellant,
cites: Sec. 427, Code Proo. 1912 is to enable a party to avoid surprise but not to provide means to forcé his adversary to prove his case: 24 S. C. 550; 40 S. C. 395; 18 S, E. 929; 48 S. G. 80; 26 S. E. 1; 48 S. C. 364; 26 S. E. 669. Order ivas one involving the merits and as such appealable: Sec. 11 Code Proc 1912; and finally determines a substantial right in the case: 8 S. C. 112; 11 S. C. 122. Orders based on error of law and prejudicial to trial are appealable: 32 S..C. 102; .34 S. C. 345; 36 S. C. 559. Exercise of discretion without authority may be challenged: 110 Me. 441.
Messrs. Rayman Schwarts and Epps & Levy for respondent.
March 12, 1921.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chiee Justice Gary.
Eor the reasons assigned by his Honor the Circuit Judge, the order made by him' is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Watts and Mr, Justice Eraser concur.