Anderson & Co. v. Holmes & Durham

Citations

• 14 S.C. 162
• 1880 S.C. LEXIS 111

Syllabus

<p>1. A mortgage of personal property connected with the business of a turpentine distillery, containing no agreement that a suspension of operations should be regarded as a breach of the condition of the mortgage, and the proof of a suspension not being clear, there was no error'in the refusal of the Circuit judge to charge “that the suspension of operations by the mortgagor was a breach of the mortgage.”</p> <p>2. Under a mortgage of personal propert^igiven to secure the payment of moneys and interest, the mortgagee has no right to the possession of the property until the debt is due, notwithstanding that to the concluding clause, that the mortgagor shall retain possession until default, &c., are superadded the words, “ but always at the will of the mortgagee.”</p> <p>3. The general intention to be collected from the whole context and every part of a written instrument, is always to be preferred to the particular expression.</p> <p>4. A firm contracting, afterwards made a change in its membership, and informed the other contracting party of such change, who made no complaint, and the new firm brought an action for a subsequent breach of the contract — Held, that to the defendant’s request to charge that the new firm could not bring action for this breach of the contract, the presiding judge committed no error in adding “ unless the contract was renewed with the new firm.”</p>