Commercial Security Co. v. Donald Drug Co.
Supreme Court of South Carolina
•Before DEVorE, J., Anderson, Pall term, 1919. . Action by Commercial Security Co. against Donald Drug Co. on four alleged promissory notes. . Prom judgment for defendant, the plaintiff appeals. cites: Alteration, if there was one, was not for illegal or fraudulent purposes: Negotiable Instruments Act (1914), 28-Staf. 668, sec. 12, art. I. Plaintiff is holder in due course: Id., sec. 52, art. .IV.
Read the full summary
•Before DEVorE, J., Anderson, Pall term, 1919. . Action by Commercial Security Co. against Donald Drug Co. on four alleged promissory notes. . Prom judgment for defendant, the plaintiff appeals. cites: Alteration, if there was one, was not for illegal or fraudulent purposes: Negotiable Instruments Act (1914), 28-Staf. 668, sec. 12, art. I. Plaintiff is holder in due course: Id., sec. 52, art. .IV. Where conflict between written and printed portions of note written prevail: Id.., subdiv. 4, sec. 17, art. I. Material alteration would not avoid in'hands of one who had not been a party to such…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Hydrick.
This is the third appeal in this case. See 110 S. C. 353, 96 S. E. 529, and 112 S. C. 457, 100 S. E. 359. The action is upon four promissory notes, dated December 6, 1916, for $225 each, signed by defendant and payable to the order of Partin- Manufacturing Company. The notes were transferred to plaintiff before maturity by the payee’s indorsement thereof.
Plaintiff alleges that it is a holder of them in due course. Defendant denies that, and alleges, among other things, that the notes were delivered to the agent of the payee, subject…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Muse v. ClarkSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1919
- Commercial Security Co. v. Donald Drug Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1919
- Commercial Security Co. v. Donnald Drug Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1918