Moses v. Hatfield

Citations

• 27 S.C. 324
• 3 S.E. 538
• 1887 S.C. LEXIS 139

Syllabus

<p>1. Parol testimony is competent to apply a written contract to a proper subject-matter, and therefore it was admissible in this case to show that a mortgage, purporting to secure a note for a specified sum of money, was really given to secure future advances.</p> <p>2. There was no error in refusing to require the assignee of this mortgage to produce the note, when the complaint alleged that no note had ever been given, and the defence made no allegation that such a note had ever existed — particularly where its description in the mortgage did not show that it was negotiable.</p> <p>3. Where the assignee of a mortgage given to a partnership, files his complaint for foreclosure, in which he alleges that the defendant executed his mortgage to M. & Co., and sets out the mortgage which recites the partnership of M. & Co., the allegation of partnership was sufficient; but if deficient in form, might be cured by amendment.</p> <p>4. One member of a partnership firm may assign a mortgage by signing the firm-name to the assignment; and so, too, he may assign the evidence of debt secured by the mortgage, and such an assignment would carry with it the mortgage.</p>