Lummus Cotton Gin Co. v. Cave
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Memminger, J., Barnwell, Fall term, 1916. Action by the Lummus Cotton Gin Co. against T. S. Cave. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Messrs.
Read the full summary
Before Memminger, J., Barnwell, Fall term, 1916. Action by the Lummus Cotton Gin Co. against T. S. Cave. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Messrs. Brozvn & Bush submit: It zvas error to permit defendants, after the objection of plaintiff’s counsel, to introduce parol testimony tending to show that the note sued upon was executed by them as agents, when their signatures were under seal, and there being nothing to indicate that they ■acted in any other capacity than individuals: 27 S. C. 376; Starkie on Evidence 648. A person contracting as agent will be personally liable, whether…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of- the Court was delivered by
Mr. Chief Justice Gary.
This is an action on a promissory note, of which the following is a copy:
“Note $896. Barnwell, S. C., Aug. 7, 1912. On or before October 23, 1913, we promise to pay to the order of hummus Cotton Gin Co., of Columbus, Ga., at the Home-Bank of Barnwell, Barnwell, S. C., the sum-of eight hundred ninety-six and 00-100 dollars, value received, the same being for purchase money due for cotton ginning machinery and1 other personalty more particularly described in the-purchase money contract this day executed by the undersigned, whereby…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Watson v. PaschallSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1913
- Meyer v. BrunsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1916
3Cited by3 opinions
- Mitchell v. Rock Hill National Bank (In Re Mid-Atlantic Piping Products of Charlotte, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. North Carolina · 1982
- Kegel v. McCormackWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937
- Starley v. Deseret Foods CorporationUtah Supreme Court · 1938