Ludden v. Sumter

Citations

• 47 S.C. 335
• 25 S.E. 150
• 1896 S.C. LEXIS 120

Syllabus

<p>1. Cdaim and Dedivery — Principad and Agent — Evidence—Chatted Mortgage. — In a claim and delivery suit, it is incompetent for an agent of the mortgagee, who is authorized to seize the property under the mortgage, to state a conversation in regard to seizing the property had with a third party, without proof that such third party was the agent of the mortgagor.</p> <p>2. Ibid. — Ibid.-—-Ibid.—Ibid.-—In a claim and delivery suit, where it is sought to bind the mortgagor by conversations with his agent; when such reputed agent is sworn by mortgagor, and not asked by mortgagee on cross-examination as to the conversation, and the mortgagor afterwards swears that such person was her agent at a later time, it is incompetent for the mortgagee to prove the conversation in reply.</p> <p>3. Ibid. — Evidence.—In a claim and delivery suit, the question, ‘ ‘What did you do in reference to it?” propounded to the agent of plaintiff, is too uncertain and indefinite to elicit a proper answer in regard to the demand of possession and refusal.</p> <p>4. Ibid. — REQUEST,—While the request, ‘ ‘that if the jury concludes that the defendant denied the title of plaintiff to the property in dispute prior to the commencement of this action, it is not necessary to show demand,” may embody a correct proposition of law, yet there is no error in refusing such request in this case, as there was nothing in the evidence to call for or require such instruction.</p>