Case Name: PINSON v. BOWLES ET AL.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1921-04-13
Citations: 116 S.C. 47
Docket Number: No. 10608
Parties: PINSON v. BOWLES ET AL.
Judges: Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Eraser, concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 47–53

Head Matter:
No. 10608
PINSON v. BOWLES ET AL.
(106 S. E. 775)
1. Trial — Right to Open and Close Waived Where Not Claimed.— Though under the pleadings defendants were entitled to open ana close, yet where the right was not demanded until after plaintiff had begun its opening, defendants,cannot complain.
2. Appeal and Error — Where Alter Denying Right to Open And Close, Court Offered Defendants Right to Reply to Plaintiff's Argument, Error Was Cured. — Though under the pleadings defendants were entitled to open and close, and that right was denied them, yet where the Court offered to allow them to reply to plaintiff’s argument, the error, if any, was cured.
3. Trial — Charge Not Objectionable Where as a Whole it Was Correct. — Appellants cannot complain of the charge, where they were not prejudiced, and the charge as a whole was correct and applicable to the evidence.
Before Sease, J., Greenwood, July, 1920.
Affirmed *
Action by E. L. Pinson against M. G. Bowles and Mrs. M. E. Bowles on a promissory note. From judgment for plaintiff the defendants appeal.
Messrs. Grier, Park and Nicholson, for appellants,
cite: Defendants were entitled to open and reply: 35 S. C. 165; 50 S. C. 25; 63 S. C. 291; 92 S. C. 122. Plaintiff’s contract to sell was absolute and his failure to sell was a breach of the contract: Bttiott on Contracts, Vol. 3, Sec. 1891.
Messrs. Tillman and Mays, for respondent,
cite: Bxamination of record shows defendcmts were not prejudiced by Judge’s charge: 93 S. C. 420, 426 ; 78 S. C. 81; 93 S. C. 295, 299. Where no time is fixed for the performance of a contract the law fixes a reasonable time in which a party similarly situated could do the work: 46 S. C. 511.
April 13, 1921.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
This is an action on a note. Defense, failure of consideration. -Cause tried before Judge Sease and a jury at the April term of Court, 1920, for Greenwood County, and resulted in a verdict in favor of- plaintiff for amount sued for.
Exceptions, six in number, allege error on the part of his ITonor.
Exception 1 alleges on the part of his Honor in not allowing defendant to open and reply. This exception is overruled. The defendant was not prejudiced by such ruling, and at the tim[e of the? ruling no suggestion or intimation was given to* the Court that the defendant would be prejudiced by; such ruling, and by standing by and permitting the plaintiff to offer testimony without claiming the right at the proper time the defendant waived it, but later1 his Honor gave the defendant the right to reply in argument if they desired it. Ths certanly cured the error, if any.
Exceptions 2, 3, 4 and 5 allege error in his Honor's charge. Taking the charge as a whole, the defendants were not prejudced,'and the charge as a whole was correct, applicable to the facts testified to, and the law of the case.
Exception 6 alleges error in allowing Ellis to testify as to certain facts. This was not prejudicial; the evidence was competent to show the situation at that time.
All exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.
Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Eraser, concur.