Dickson v. Gourdin
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Witherspoon, J., Charleston, July, 1886. The opinion states the facts of the case. The Circuit decree was as follows: The sole question then submitted for determination by the court is, whether or. not the estate of Henry Gourdin, the deceased surety and joint and several obligor on said bond, is discharged from liability by the presumption of payment arising from lapse of time.
Read the full summary
Before Witherspoon, J., Charleston, July, 1886. The opinion states the facts of the case. The Circuit decree was as follows: The sole question then submitted for determination by the court is, whether or. not the estate of Henry Gourdin, the deceased surety and joint and several obligor on said bond, is discharged from liability by the presumption of payment arising from lapse of time. Ordinarily and within twenty years it has been held that the possession of a note by plaintiff entitled him to judgment, unless the defendant shows payment. After the twenty years has expired from maturity the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mr. Justice McGowan.
This was an action against Robert N. Gourdin, and Robert N. Gourdin and Henry E. Young, the executors of Henry Gourdin, to recover the amount due on a joint and several bond executed by R. N. Gour-din and Henry Gourdin, noAv deceased, which became due in 1857. Judgment by default was rendered against Robert N. Gourdin, but the executors of Henry claimed that as to his estate the bond was presumed paid by lapse of time. Upon this issue the facts agreed upon were as folloAvs:
1. The plaintiff is the legal owner and holder of the bond…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Butts v. Georgetown Mutual Building & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1927
- Dickson v. GourdinSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1888