American Agricultural Chem. Co. v. Heaton
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before DeV ore, J., Greenville, April, 1915. Action by the American Agricultural Chemical Company against P. B. Heaton and others, and Mrs. E. E. Butler. From a judgment for plaintiff, the last named defendant appeals. The complaint in two counts set out the instrument •involved, calling it in one count a'“note” and in the other an “instrument for the payment of money.” cites: As to construction of instrument: 2 Spears E. 674; 1 Strob.
Read the full summary
Before DeV ore, J., Greenville, April, 1915. Action by the American Agricultural Chemical Company against P. B. Heaton and others, and Mrs. E. E. Butler. From a judgment for plaintiff, the last named defendant appeals. The complaint in two counts set out the instrument •involved, calling it in one count a'“note” and in the other an “instrument for the payment of money.” cites: As to construction of instrument: 2 Spears E. 674; 1 Strob. E. 447; 7 Cyc. 673; Cheves 91; 5 T. R. 482. cite: As to election of remedies: 7 Enc. PI. & Pr. 361; 5 lb. 321, 323; 73 Mo. 172; 56 Iowa 632. Liability of third…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
This is an action on a promissory note.
1 Mrs. Butler, the appellant, is the owner of a tract of land rented to her codefendants. These tenants gave to the plaintiff-respondent a note and mortgage of the crops raised on Mrs. Butler’s land. The note and mortgage were written on the same piece of paper, and Mrs. Butler wrote her name on the back of the paper. It might have been a question as to whether Mrs. Butler intended to become a maker or indorser of the note, on the one hand, or consent to the mortgage, on the other. The mortgage…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McLaughlin v. BraddySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1902
3Cited by1 opinion
- Norwood Natl. Bk. v. Piedmont Pub. Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1917