Case Name: Thomas Robson v. Thomas Jones
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1830-12
Citations: 2 Bail. 4
Docket Number: 
Parties: Thomas Robson v. Thomas Jones.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 4–5

Head Matter:
Thomas Robson v. Thomas Jones.
The defendant being unlawfully detained with his goods within the plaintiff’s inclosure, forced his way out by breaking the gate. Held, that trespass would not lie.
Upon a contract for the sale of goods at a stipulated price, if, on delivery, the purchaser object to the quality of the goods, he has no right to retain them at a reduced price, but the contract is at an end, and the vendor’s title continues unimpaired. ,
Tried before Mr. Justice Richardson, at Columbia, Fall Term, 1830.
Trespass for breaking plaintiff’s close, and carrying off his goods. The plaintiff, a merchant, contracted to purchase a wagon load of cotton from the defendant at a stipulated price, and the cotton was turned out and weighed. It was then discovered that the cotton was fraudulently packed, and the plaintiff refused to take it at the price stipulated, but insisted upon a right to retain it, paying for it, what, upon a survey by merchants, should be thought its value. To this the defendant objected, but the cotton was allowed to remain in plaintiff’s yard until the next morning, when the defendant replaced it in his wagon: To prevent its removal, plaintiff locked his gate, which defendant broke, and forced his way out.
His Honor charged, that the cotton being fraudulently packed, the plaintiff had a right to refuse paying the price stipulated, but his doing so put an end to the contract of sale, and the defendant’s title continued unimpaired. He had no right to insist upon a sale at a reduced price, which was a new contract, into which the defendant was not bound to enter: That as to breaking plaintiff’s close, defendant had entered by plaintiff’s consent, and he and his goods were detained there against his will; and under such circumstances he had a right to force his way out, and committed no trespass in doing so.
Verdict for defendant. Motion for new trial, on the ground of misdirection as to law and fact.
Hammond, for motion.
W. F. Desatjssure, contra.

Opinion:
Johnson J.
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The court is of opinion that the jury were correctly instructed as to the law of the case, and their finding as to the facts is conclusive.
Motion refused.