City Council v. People's National Bank

Citations

• 23 S.C. 410
• 1885 S.C. LEXIS 117

Syllabus

<p>In action by a city council to recover city stock transferred under a forged assignment, and the defence being the statute of limitations, the judge charged the jury that the statute did not commence to run until disoovery by the city of the invalidity of the assignments, or knowledge of facts sufficient to excite inquiry. Being then asked by a juror, “Do we understand you to say that the filing of the case of A was sufficient notice to the city, and that the statute of limitations, therefore, runs from that date?” The judge replied: “If the evidence satisfies you that the case of A was sufficient notice to the council to put them on the inquiry as to whether that was a forged paper or a genuine one, then it was a sufficient notice to fix the time at which the statute of limitations should commence to run.” Held, that this response, interpreted in the light of the main charge, was not erroneous.</p>