Legal Opinion

Bank of Charleston National Banking Ass'n v. Zorn

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided January 10, 1881No. CASE No. 969PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Before Aldrich, J., Barnwell, This action was commenced January 7fch, 1878, and was upon a promissory note, made by J. B. Zorn, the defendant, on January 29th, 1876, for $157.51, and payable to the order of Wroton & Dowling, at their office,' in Charleston, on October 1st, 1876, and endorsed before maturity to the Bank of Charleston National Banking Association, as collateral security to a note of Wroton & Dowling, given for money borrowed from plaintiff, the collaterals…

Read the full summary

Before Aldrich, J., Barnwell, This action was commenced January 7fch, 1878, and was upon a promissory note, made by J. B. Zorn, the defendant, on January 29th, 1876, for $157.51, and payable to the order of Wroton & Dowling, at their office,' in Charleston, on October 1st, 1876, and endorsed before maturity to the Bank of Charleston National Banking Association, as collateral security to a note of Wroton & Dowling, given for money borrowed from plaintiff, the collaterals being in the proportion of about $2 for every $1 of the principal debt. The note of Wroton & Dowling was renewed several…

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Simpson, C. J.

Did the Circuit judge err in not ruling out the first defence stated in the answer, is the first question for our consideration.

In Cohrs v. Fraser, 5 S. C. 351, where a similar question arose, the court said: “A motion to strike out a part of defendant’s answer as inconsistent, contradictory, or for any other cause, should be made after notice in a reasonable time from the filing of the answer.” This was regarded necessary to prevent surprise, and perhaps a continuance of the cause. This course was not pursued here, and the judge,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Wallace v. McConnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
  2. Wolcott v. Van SantvoordNew York Supreme Court · 1819

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Franklin v. Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Railway Co.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1906
  2. Taylor v. NixSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1992

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API