Savings Bank v. Alexander Sprunt & Son
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Kiajgh, J., York,- Action by Savings Bank of Port Mill against Alexander Sprunt & Son. From judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal cites: Nonsuit should have been granted: Sec. 192, Code Proc.; 33 S. C., 477; 37 S. C., 603. Acts of agent without authority are not binding on principal: 65 S. C., 557; 3 DeS. Eq., 393; 7 Rich., 528; 3 Rich 42; 1 Ency., 1022-25; 10 Rich.
Read the full summary
Before Kiajgh, J., York,- Action by Savings Bank of Port Mill against Alexander Sprunt & Son. From judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal cites: Nonsuit should have been granted: Sec. 192, Code Proc.; 33 S. C., 477; 37 S. C., 603. Acts of agent without authority are not binding on principal: 65 S. C., 557; 3 DeS. Eq., 393; 7 Rich., 528; 3 Rich 42; 1 Ency., 1022-25; 10 Rich. L., 338; 24 Ia„ 99; 1 Ency., 998; 55 S..E., 812. Subagent — bills of lading: 4 S. C., 386; 27-S. C.,.132; 10 Rich., 332; 42 S. E., 473; 49 S. E., 54. Trade, usage and custom: 29 Ency., 394-409; 10 Rich. L., 338.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by .
Mr. Chief Justice Jones.
The plaintiff brought this action against James Sprunt and William R. Sprunt, as Alexander Sprunt & Son, to recover $1,567.50 with interest, on account of money advanced to defendants at their request to purchase and pay for twenty-eight bales of cotton in the town of Fort Mill on February 22, 1908.
At the commencement of the action, February 24, 1908, upon affidavits showing, among other things, that the defendants were non-residents, plaintiff caused the cotton to be attached. The judgment was for the plaintiff for the full…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Welch v. Clifton Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1899
3Cited by2 opinions
- Harrison v. MorrisDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1974
- Hall v. LockeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1921