Central National Bank v. Efird
Supreme Court of South Carolina
■Before Gage, J., Lexington, November, 1910. Action by Central National Bank of Kansas City against D. E Efird et al. Plaintiff appeals. ci-tesn Parol evidence is not admissible where it varies the writing: 61 S. C. 166; 65 S. C. 138; 72 S. C. 364; 79 S. C. 499; 80 S. C. 43; Green, on Ev., sec. 277; 104 U. S. 30; 13 S. C. 338; 46 S. C. 412; 52 S. C. 154; 77 S. C. 78; 83 S. C. 204; 85 S. C. 419. Court should have construed the note: 81 S. C. 229; 19 S. C. 124; 15 S. C. 10,…
Read the full summary
■Before Gage, J., Lexington, November, 1910. Action by Central National Bank of Kansas City against D. E Efird et al. Plaintiff appeals. ci-tesn Parol evidence is not admissible where it varies the writing: 61 S. C. 166; 65 S. C. 138; 72 S. C. 364; 79 S. C. 499; 80 S. C. 43; Green, on Ev., sec. 277; 104 U. S. 30; 13 S. C. 338; 46 S. C. 412; 52 S. C. 154; 77 S. C. 78; 83 S. C. 204; 85 S. C. 419. Court should have construed the note: 81 S. C. 229; 19 S. C. 124; 15 S. C. 10, 296; 22 S. C. 288; 24 S. C. 497.; 46 S. C. 220; 59 S. C. 591; 3 S. C. 253; 6 Cyc. 419; 115 111. 407; 66 S. C. 22. The…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Hydrick.
Plaintiff sued defendants on their promissory note for $1,333, dated February 6, 1907, payable to the order of McLaughlin Brothers, two- years after date. The note was given in part payment for a stallion. Plaintiff purchased it in the regular course of business, in good faith, for full value, before maturity, and without notice of any defense, defect or infirmity. The defenses set up were: 1. That A. R. Taylor was to sign the note, as a comaker with defendants, before it was delivered, and the payee agreed -that it should not be…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Citizens National Bank of Baltimore v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1896
- Exchange Nat. Bank of Spokane v. Bank of Little RockCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1893
- Sanders v. BagwellSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1890
3Cited by2 opinions
- Barringer v. Dinkler Hotels Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1932
- Waddell v. CarySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1930