Wilmington, Columbia & Augusta R. R. v. Ling

Citations

• 18 S.C. 116
• 1882 S.C. LEXIS 115

Syllabus

<p>1. In action by a railroad company against tbe sureties on the bond of a station agent, who was in arrears to the company when the bond was executed, and continued to make additional defaults in several subsequent monthly settlements, the presiding judge committed no error in charging the jury “that if the plaintiffs knew when the bond was given; that their agent was in default and indebted to them in his pre-existing agency, and yet concealed this fact and held him out' to the sureties as trustworthy, either expressly or impliedly, such conduct would be a fraud upon the . sureties, and would make void the bond as to them.”</p> <p>2. But in charging further “that each default of the agent, after the bond was given, in failing to pay over to the company the money collected by him, was a breach of his duty and obligation, and gave the' plaintiffs the right to dismiss him; that if knowing of these defaults, the plaintiffs condoned his fault and continued him in his agency without notice to his sureties of his misconduct, such conduct would be prejudicial to the interest of the sureties, and would discharge them; ” he erred in failing to limit-the discharge to defaults occurring after the first.</p> <p>3. The judge erred in refusing to charge the jury “that, as matter of law, it was no fraud upon the sureties to the bond in suit that the principal was behind in his accounts at the time the bond was given, and no notice was given to the sureties.”</p> <p>4. He also erred in refusing to charge “ that the plaintiffs were not bound to-notify the sureties of each or any default of the principal agent, and that the sureties were not discharged by failure on their part to do so.”</p>