Pelzer, Rodgers & Co. v. Campbell & Co.

Citations

• 15 S.C. 581
• 1881 S.C. LEXIS 109

Syllabus

<p>1. A creditor agreed to give his debtor, a partnership firm, further indulgence, if notes were given him for the amount due, signed by the firm and by C., the mother of one of the partners. The notes were signed in the partnership name, with a seal added, and were then taken to C. by her son, and afterwards delivered to the creditor with her signature and seal. Held, that the notes were supported by a sufficient consideration and binding upon C., and that parol evidence was inadmissible to show the understanding and intention of C. at the time of execution, or that she was ignorant of the indulgence given.</p> <p>2. Even if the seal of the partnership was affixed to the notes, which were given for an existing partnership debt, without the authority of one of the partners, C.'would not thereby be released from her obligation.</p> <p>S.A married woman signed the notes of her son as surety, without any advantage to herself or her estate. Held, that she had legal capacity to bind herself, and was liable for the payment of the debt.</p> <p>4. An act of the legislature may not be lightly declared unconstitutional; every part of the state constitution should, if possible, be so construed as to allow full force to Section 1, Article II., which vests plenary legislative power in the general assembly.</p> <p>5. - The general objects of a written constitution are to lay down fundamental principles and to limit the powers of government, but not to legislate on mere details.</p> <p>6. While power to legislate upon a subject may be prohibited by a constitutional provision simply affirmative, as where such provision would be frustrated by legislation, yet the doctrine of exhaustive grant is not favored; and as to matters upon which the legislature had before been accustomed to act, its right to legislate further will not be taken away by implication, unless such implication is necessary.</p> <p>7. This case distinguished from Duncan v. Barnett, 11 S. O. 333.</p> <p>8. There is