Green v. Spires
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Townsend, J., Orangeburg, Three actions: (1) T. A. Green against Henry S. Spires; (2) same against J. B. Traywick; (3) same against A. S. Jennings et al. From- judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. cite: 69 S. C., 65; 18.S. C., 282; 28 S-. C., 505; Story on Prom. Notes, sec. 1; 1 Dan. Neg.
Read the full summary
Before Townsend, J., Orangeburg, Three actions: (1) T. A. Green against Henry S. Spires; (2) same against J. B. Traywick; (3) same against A. S. Jennings et al. From- judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. cite: 69 S. C., 65; 18.S. C., 282; 28 S-. C., 505; Story on Prom. Notes, sec. 1; 1 Dan. Neg. Inst., sec. 62; 48 S. C., 313. cite: 28 S. C., 504; 48 S. C., 310; 2 Ency., 314; 18 S. C., 287; 1 Spear, 127; 9 Rich., 297; 12 Rich., 425; 13. S. C., 288; 18 S. C., 494; 4 Ency., 2 eel., 135, 123, 771; 63 S.-C., 433; 29 Pa. St., 529; Clark on Con., 542; 4 McC., 159.
1Dissent
I do not concur in the view expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Gary, that the notes in question were non-negotiable by reason of the stipulation to pay "all costs and expenses, including ten per cent. of the amount so collected for attorney's fees," in case of collection through an attorney or by legal proceedings.
There is undoubtedly great conflict among the authorities on this subject, as may be seen by reference to cases cited in 4 Ency. Law, 2d ed., 98, 99, 100. I prefer to side with those cases which hold the view that such a stipulation does not destroy the negotiability of the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Seaton v. ScovillSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
- Gaar v. Louisville Banking Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1874
- Carroll County Savings Bank v. StrotherSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1888
- Stoneman v. PyleIndiana Supreme Court · 1871
- Dorsey v. WolffIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.