Legal Opinion

Wells v. Hays

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided November 16, 1912No. 8367PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Before Watts, J., Greenwood, Action by P. J. Wells against A. B. Hays, executrix of R. M. Hays. Plaintiff appeals. Entries in account books and stubs of checks are not admissible to show payments: Greenleaf, sec. 120 b-c; Wigmore, secs. 1523-5, 1539; 9 Ency. 930; 22 Ency. 581-2, 585; 2 R. R. A. (N. S.) 401; 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 138; 17 Cyc. 374; 33 S. E. 640; 57 Ga. 145; 93 Am. St. R. 755; Elliott, sec. 467; McKelvy, sec. 71; 52 E. R. A. (N. S.) 689; 5 S. E. R. 21; 2 Rich.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydricic.

This action was brought to recover the balance due on a due bill for $1,138.53, dated March 29, 1904, and given to plaintiff by.R. M. Hays & Brother, a mercantile firm composed ol R. M. and A. G. Hays, both of whom died before the commencement of the action. The action was brought against defendant alone, because she assumed payment of the due bill.

Plaintiff admits one payment of $200.00, which was credited on the due bill. Defendant pleads four others, which, with that admitted, aggregate $964.67, leaving a balance of only…

2Cited by5 opinions

Elmore v. Middlesex Mut. Fire Ins. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1951
Edens v. GibsonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1915
Green v. McDanielSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1933
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. FolsomIdaho Supreme Court · 1929
State v. HoughSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1914