Weyman v. Perry

Citations

• 42 S.C. 415
• 20 S.E. 287
• 1894 S.C. LEXIS 60

Syllabus

<p>1. Sealed Note — Delivery—Purpose—Agency.—A sealed note for $Y00, payable to D. in ninety days, for “printing supplies, including type, &o.,” was signed by five obligors, and at the same time the two first named gave to the other three obligors, as their sureties, a mortgage of the printing material, to be bought of D., and other property. The note was left with the first obligor, who discounted it with plaintiff for $6Y0, and then purchased type and other printing supplies from D. for $580, paying to him $500 in cash, realized from the discount, and leaving title in D. to secure the remaining $80. Afterwards D. endorsed this note to plaintiff without recourse. Held, that the note carried notice on its face that it was not operative until delivered to D. (which was never done) for printing supplies, and that, therefore, the plaintiff could not recover from the last three obligors on this note.</p> <p>2. Ibid. — Ibid.—Ibid.—Evidence.—Other terms than those expressed in the note could not be proved so as to affect the absent obligors, and, therefore, testimony of D. was inadmissible to show his intention in refusing to receive the note in payment, suggesting a discount and accepting its proceeds, and in afterwards assigning this note.</p> <p>3. Ibid. — Ibid.—Ibid.—Nonsuit.—The testimony being that the note was never delivered to D., and was assigned by him some time after its discount by plaintiff, and its diversion from the purpose expressed on its face, a nonsuit was proper.</p> <p>4. Ibid. — Ibid.—Ibid.-—-Agency.—-The fact that $500 of the note was used in purchasing printing supplies did not make the obligors liable to that extent. By this action their mortgage security was defeated.</p> <p>5. Delivery — Agency—Evidence.—D. having refused to accept the note, no statement made by his agent was competent testimony against defendant.</p>