Coleman v. Dunlap
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Cothran, J., Laurens, June, 1882. Tbe opinion states the case. The Circuit decree was as follows: I agree with the master in his findings of facts; also in his rulings upon section 415 of the code; also, that Dunlap, the endorser, upon taking up the note, was invested with the rights of the bank to enforce payment from Fuller, and that the transfer of the note by Dunlap to the plaintiff, for value, was a re-issue of it, with a revival of his liability as endorser.
Read the full summary
Before Cothran, J., Laurens, June, 1882. Tbe opinion states the case. The Circuit decree was as follows: I agree with the master in his findings of facts; also in his rulings upon section 415 of the code; also, that Dunlap, the endorser, upon taking up the note, was invested with the rights of the bank to enforce payment from Fuller, and that the transfer of the note by Dunlap to the plaintiff, for value, was a re-issue of it, with a revival of his liability as endorser. I cannot, however, agree with the master, that it was necessary for the plaintiff to show that he had pursued the maker…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Me. Justice McGowan.
On May 22d, 1875, James Fuller made his promissory note for $125, payable to one R. 8. Dunlap, at the bank of Newberry, five months after date. Dunlap endorsed the note in blank, and, upon receiving the note, the bank paid the money to Fuller, the maker, who, in order to secure Dunlap, his endorser, executed and delivered to him a chattel mortgage of a mule valued at $120. When the note fell due, October 25th following, Dunlap, waiving protest in writing over his signature, took up the note and some time afterwards formally assigned…
2Cited by3 opinions
- In Re WoodberryUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina · 2008
- First Nat. Bk. of Hartsville v. WoodSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1918
- Marston v. RiversSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1927