87 S.E. 1002 (S.C. 1916), 9262, J.W. Copeland Co. v. Brown

Docket Nº:9262.
Citation:87 S.E. 1002, 103 S.C. 177
Opinion Judge:WATTS, J.
Party Name:J. W. COPELAND CO. v. BROWN.
Attorney:F. P. McGowan, of Laurens, and H. L. Scaife, of Clinton, for appellant. Dial & Todd, of Laurens, for respondent.
Case Date:February 25, 1916
Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1002

87 S.E. 1002 (S.C. 1916)

103 S.C. 177

J. W. COPELAND CO.

v.

BROWN.

No. 9262.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 25, 1916

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Laurens County; Ernest Moore, Judge.

Action by the J. W. Copeland Company against W. R. Brown. From a judgment sustaining an order refusing to dissolve an attachment, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The judgment of the court below read, in part, as follows:

"The second ground of appeal complains of error in failing to hold that there was no showing of authority by J. T. Robertson, the secretary and treasurer of the plaintiff corporation, to sign the name of the plaintiff in the attachment bond in this case. * * * As to these matters, it appears by the record that the bond herein questioned was signed by the plaintiff corporation, the J. W. Copeland Company, by J. T. Robertson, secretary and treasurer. An affidavit was submitted at the hearing before the magistrate, showing that J. T. Robertson was duly authorized to sign the bond in the name of the plaintiff, on the day of its date; and, even if there be no presumption of authority by such an officer to execute a bond of this character, the affidavit shows that by vote of the directors of the plaintiff corporation, the attachment bond here in question was duly authorized to be signed in the name of the corporation by that officer on the very day of its execution. It was the duty of the magistrate to ascertain the authority of the person executing the bond, and it is to be presumed he did his duty at the time; but it was not necessary that the authority to sign should be filed with the[103 S.C. 179] bond. See Grollman v. Lipsitz, 43 S.C. 340 [21 S.E. 272]."

The third and fourth exceptions are as follows:

"(3) Because at the time of the issuance of the attachment by the magistrate, R. R. Milam, the said magistrate did not have before him the authority of J. T. Robertson, the secretary and treasurer of the plaintiff, to execute the attachment undertaking, and no such authority was filed in the record, and the said J. T. Robertson at the time did not have the legal authority to issue the said undertaking, and the affidavit of J. T. Robertson at the trial should not have been considered to sustain an illegal and irregular attachment and the resolution of the board of directors did not show that a majority were present at their meeting or were notified of same, and the stockholders of a corporation, and not the directors, must make the rules and regulations of the company for the management of its affairs, and that the president is the executive office of the

corporation.

(4) [103 S.C. 180] Because the amount of the debt claimed was $51.97, and the value of the property attached was $100, and the undertaking upon which the attachment was issued was only for $25, and the said attachment was illegally issued and should have been dissolved on this ground, or the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP