Mills v. Williams

Citations

• 16 S.C. 593
• 1882 S.C. LEXIS 35

Syllabus

<p>1. A party seeking to impeach a contract because it was made on Sunday must show that it was done by a person in the exercise of the business of his ordinary calling. Hellams v. Abercrombie, 15 S. G. 110, approved.</p> <p>2. A horse was sold at public auction under a mortgage, and purchased by a disinterested third person, and he, failing to comply, transferred his bid to the mortgagee, who took possession. There being no evidence' to show fraud in the sale, or that the price paid was, at the time, inadequate, or that the mortgagee had resold at a profit, held, that the sale was valid.</p> <p>3. A principal executed a sealed note, with her husband and two others as sureties, for a sum certain, expressed to be for “ value received in mule,” with the name of the payee left blank, and delivered it to her husband, as her agent, to purchase a mule from a certain drover whose name was forgotten. The husband used the note in the purchase of a horse of greater-value from another person, giving his own obligation for the difference. Held, that as to the other parties to the note there was no delivery, and the husband was alone liable to the holder, even if no notice, other than that expressed in the note, was brought home to the holder that the note was intended for another person. Gourdin v. Lead, 8 Lich. 230, recognized and followed.</p> <p>4. Knowledge by the principal and her other sureties that this horse had been purchased was no ratification of the delivery of the note, whether they knew of the use of the note for such purpose or not. Nor did the deposit by the principal of a sum. of money with her sureties to save them harmless in this suit, nor a remark made by one of such sureties after action commenced, that the note would have been paid if not sued, amount to a ratification of the misappropriation of the note.</p>