Thomas v. Atkinson
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Gage, J., Richland, October, 1912. Action by H. G. Thomas against Christopher Atkinson in court of magistrate James H. Fowles, Jr. Defendant appeals. Defendant not being in possession of checks at time of suit and not having zvrongfully parted with them is not liable: 42 S. C. 35; 80 Am.
Read the full summary
Before Gage, J., Richland, October, 1912. Action by H. G. Thomas against Christopher Atkinson in court of magistrate James H. Fowles, Jr. Defendant appeals. Defendant not being in possession of checks at time of suit and not having zvrongfully parted with them is not liable: 42 S. C. 35; 80 Am. St. R. 736. Question of title to checks is not involved here: 60 S. C. 108; 23 N. Y. 264. Plaintiff having no license to solicit should not recover: 20 S. C. 437. Verdict should be in alternative: 20 S. C. 11; 18 S. C. 386. One may maintain a suit on a contract made for his benefit: 2 Bail. 55; 1 Dud.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of £he Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Hydricic.
The plaintiff, an insurance agent, solicited the defendant for a policy, which was procured in a company represented' 'by plaintiff, but defendant declined to- take the policy, because he was not satisfied with the premium. Defendant afterwards applied to Mr. R. J. Blalock, the general agent of another company, and took a policy in his company, he agreeing, at defendant’s request, that plaintiff should ha,ve the agent’s commissions. In pursuance of this agreement, Blalock sent defendant two checks, payable to plaintiff’s order, one…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Johnson v. American Railway Express Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1931
- General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. HuttoSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1926
- United States v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaDistrict Court, W.D. South Carolina · 1946
- Caldwell v. CarrollSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1927