¶1 (concurring:) I concur, but prefer to place my concurrence as to the second ground of appeal discussed in the opinion upon this ground: In an issue as to the agreed price at which certain work is to be done, the testimony of a party to the effect that he would not have had the work done at all at the price contended for by the artificer is generally inadmissible, but, if admitted, I think that it would be so faintly corroborative of the contention of the party testifying as not to warrant the reversal of a judgment which in my opinion meets the justice of the case.
116 S.C. 165
107 S.E 250
Woods v. Thrower
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided May 5, 1921
Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1921-05-05
Before Whaley, J., County Court, Richland, 1920. Action in claim and delivery by Charles A. Woods against T. E. Thrower, trading as Thrower Automobile Company. From judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals. cite: Error to admit testimony as to reputation of witness for truth and veracity when it had not been attacked: 12 Rich.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1921-05-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 1981
3 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →