Legal Opinion

Muse v. Clark

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided April 6, 1919No. 10187PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Read the full summary

Before PeuriBoy and Shipp, JJ., Greenwood, April term, 1917, and April term, 1918. Action by J. P. Muse against W. B. Clark, George Bailey, Hugh E. Giles and F. E. Donnald. From judgment for plaintiff, the first three defendants appeal. Messrs. Grief, Park & Nicholson submit: That before the passage of the Negotiable Instruments Act it was settled that a material alteration of a negotiable instrument extinguishes all liability thereunder as against a party not consenting: 32 S. C. 244; 69 S. C. 7. An unauthorised instrument in the name of the payee of a promissory note, after execution and…

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

This is an action on a promissory note. Plaintiff alleges that defendant, Donnald, executed his note for $225, dated May 27, 1915, payable to the order of the Bank of Greenwood, on December, 1915, and defendants, Bailey, Clark, and Giles, indorsed said note to enable Donnald to raise said sum; that, thereafter and before maturity, the name of the payee, Bank of Greenwood, was stricken out, and plaintiff’s name was inserted in place thereof, as payee, by Donnald, after which plaintiff took the note, in due course, and advanced the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

First National Bank v. GridleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
State v. WorkmanSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1892
Sanders v. BagwellSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1892
Holbart v. LauritsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1914

3Cited by3 opinions

Clapper v. GambleCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1928
Commercial Security Co. v. Donald Drug Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1920
Picklesimer v. ChafinWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1927