Daly v. Cementile Roofing Co., 95 S.E. 333 (S.C. 1918). · Go Syfert
Search
Daly v. Cementile Roofing Co., 95 S.E. 333 (S.C. 1918). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Keith Daniel Williams v. Arthur Calderon, Warden, San Quentin State Prison (ca9, 1995-04-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Keith Daniel Williams v. Arthur Calderon, Warden, San Quentin State Prison
9th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Prantil v. California, 843 F.2d *1484 314, 319 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 861 , 109 S.Ct. 158 , 102 L.Ed.2d 129 (1988).
cited Cited "see" Dewey Baker v. Director, United States Parole Commission
D.C. Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Swinson v. United States Parole Comm’n, 682 F.Supp. 29 (E.D.N.C.), aff'd, 849 F.2d 606 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 861 , 109 S.Ct. 158 , 102 L.Ed.2d 129 (1988).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Alex Huerta Suniga v. R.J. Bunnell
9th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
And we also bear in mind our previous admonition that we “have defined the category of infractions that violate ‘fundamental fairness’ very narrowly.” Id. at -, 112 S.Ct. at 482 (citations and footnote omitted); see also Prantil v. California, 843 F.2d 314, 317 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 861 , 109 S.Ct. 158 , 102 L.Edüd 129 (1988).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Jose Sandoval
9th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
An “accused,” however (someone who has been either arrested or indicted), is protected from delay not by the Fifth Amendment, but rather by the "more stringent requirements of the Sixth Amendment speedy trial right.” Id. at 1382 ; see also Prantil v. California, 843 F.2d 314, 318 (9th Cir.) ("A pre-indictment delay, unlike a delay in bringing a charged defendant to trial, is ‘tested by general proscriptions of due process.’ ”) (quoting Arnold, 566 F.2d at 138 ), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 861 , 109 S.Ct. 158 , 102 L.Ed.2d 129 (1988). 9 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Hubert A. Roman v. Wayne E. Estelle
9th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Prantil v. State of California, 843 F.2d 314 , 316 n. 1 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 861 , 109 S.Ct. 158 , 102 L.Ed.2d 129 (1988); Hall v. Sumner, 682 F.2d 786 (9th Cir.1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Daly
v.
Cementile Roofing Company.
9923.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Mar 11, 1918.
95 S.E. 333
Messrs. Graydon Graydon , for appellant, cite: As to construction of guaranty: 20 Cyc. 1424; 12 Wheaton 515; 6 L.Ed. 712 . As to estoppel by contract: 21 S.E. 755; 50 S.C. 459 ; 57 S.C. 125 ; 100 U.S. 578 ; 25 L.Ed. 618 ; 16 Cyc. 722. Mr. H.N. Edmunds , for respondent.
Hydrick.
Published

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

Plaintiff appeals from judgment of nonsuit in this action to recover damages for breach of the following guaranty:

“In consideration of the sum of $376.70, * * * we[*159] hereby guarantee our product known as ‘Cementile,’ placed upon roof for you. * * * We guarantee the aforesaid cementile roofing to be free from all defects as to material and workmanship, and we hereby guarantee to keep the samé in repair for the period of ten (.10) years from this date. This guaranty does not cover the repairing of any damage caused by negligence of other parties.”

Plaintiff employed a contractor to prepare the plans and specifications for a dwelling house which he agreed to build for her. The plans called for a tin roof, but after they had been so prepared, defendant proposed to plaintiff, either directly or through the contractor, to put on a cementile roof. The contractor expressed some doubt of the wisdom of making the change on the ground the cementile was a new and untried roofing, and because he doubted whether the rafters specified would be of sufficient strength to sustain the increased load. He testified that he discussed the matter with defendant’s representative, who assured him that the rafters specified were all right and asked him to reserve his judgment as to the roofing, and not condemn it without giving it a trial, as he would give a guaranty on it. Thereupon the contract was changed, so as to provide for a cementile roof. The contractor testified that he prepared the substructure for the cementile according to defendant’s directions putting in extra brancings to the rafters wherever requested.

The roof leaked from the time it was put on,-and plaintiff has made frequent demands on defendant to repair it; but defendant says the leaking was caused by the sagging of the rafters, which was not its fault, and now tells plaintiff not only that the roof cannot be repaired unless it is all taken off and heavier rafters substituted, but that the roof is a source of menace to the occupants of the house, on account of the excessive weight on the rafters.

If-defendant assured the contractor thathhe rafters were sufficient to carry the load of its roofing to get the contract,[*160] it cannot be heard to say now that they were not. Besides-, there was testimony that the house leaked where the rafters were not sagged.

The Court erred in granting the nonsuit.

Judgment reversed.