Sawyer, Wallace & Co. v. Macaulay

Citations

• 18 S.C. 543
• 1883 S.C. LEXIS 30

Syllabus

<p>1. To permit this court to consider alleged errors of the Circuit judge in . omissions to charge, it is absolutely necessary that the “ Case ” should show that he was requested so to charge.</p> <p>2. The “Case” is the source of information for this court, and alleged errors which are not there disclosed cannot be considered.</p> <p>3. Under the law of North Carolina, which makes an endorser a surety, unless it be otherwise clearly expressed, an endorsement for collection only, without change of ownership, does not make such endorsers co-sureties with their prior endorser for value.</p> <p>4. R is too sweeping a proposition that notes are illegal if they “ arose directly or indirectly out of transactions in futures,” and the Circuit judge committed no error in refusing so to charge.</p> <p>5. Where the brief does not give the judge’s charge to the jury, a detached fragment of the charge separated from its context cannot be held by this court to be erroneous.</p> <p>6. Action on a note executed and payable in North Carolina is not barred in this State within the six years here allowed, although the limitation of actions as there prescribed is for a shorter period. The statute of limitations is applied according to the lex fori.</p> <p>7. Ownership of a note alleged in the complaint and admitted in the answer, could not at the trial be questioned upon proof of an endorsement by plaintiffs to their attorneys for collection.</p>