Groesbeck v. Marshall

Citations

• 44 S.C. 538
• 22 S.E. 743
• 1895 S.C. LEXIS 113

Syllabus

<p>1. No'tioe to Stop Prosecution — Estoppel—Cases Criticised. — A promissory note given by the defendant for the amount due by his brother to sundry parties, to stop a prosecution against this brother for embezzlement, is based upon an illegal consideration, and is against public policy, null, and void, and defendant may successfully resist its payment at the suit of an endorsee for value after maturity; nor is defendant estopped from so pleading by his written statement, seen by the endorsee at the time of his purchase, that the note was given to pay claims against the brother, and that defendant had received from his brother a conveyance of land as security fpr this note. Williams v. Walker, 18 S. 0., 577, and Booker v. Wingo, 29 Id., 116, compared and distinguished.</p> <p>2. Ibid. — Parol Testimony.- — The illegality in the consideration of a note may be shown by parol testimony, and the introduction by plaintiff of other papers to show the consideration of the note in suit, did not prevent defendant from showing the illegabeonsideration of the note.</p> <p>3. Exceptions1 which point out no specific errors are too general to require consideration.</p> <p>4. Charging Juries — Preponderance oe Evidence. — In charging the jury as to the preponderance of the testimony, the trial judge did not mislead them by using the words: “Evidence that satisfies you that more likely than not such and such was the case.”</p> <p>5. Papers in Jury Room — Waiver.—Where a record is taken into the jury room without objection, no ground exists for an exception.</p> <p>6. Requests Withdrawn. — Error cannot be imputed to the trial judge for failing to charge requests which were presented, but afterwards withdrawn.</p>