87 S.E. 1012 (S.C. 1916), 9280, International Harvester Co. of America v. Monroe Banking & Mercantile Co.

Docket Nº:9280.
Citation:87 S.E. 1012, 103 S.C. 254
Opinion Judge:GAGE, J.
Party Name:INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. OF AMERICA v. MONROE BANKING & MERCANTILE CO. ET AL.
Attorney:Haynsworth & Haynsworth, of Greenville, for appellant. Townes & Earle, of Greenville, for respondents.
Case Date:February 29, 1916
Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1012

87 S.E. 1012 (S.C. 1916)

103 S.C. 254

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. OF AMERICA

v.

MONROE BANKING & MERCANTILE CO. ET AL.

No. 9280.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 29, 1916

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Greenville County; M. F. Ansel, Special Judge.

Action by the International Harvester Company of America against the Monroe Banking & Mercantile Company and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Watts, J., dissenting.

Haynsworth & Haynsworth, of Greenville, for appellant.

Townes & Earle, of Greenville, for respondents.

GAGE, J.

The action is in equity, and is to require the defendant to deliver to the plaintiff a mortgage on land, and for the establishment thereof. The judgment below of both master and court was for the defendants, and the plaintiff has appealed.

The transaction was had in the fall of 1914, when the country was almost in the throes of bankruptcy incident to the great war. At that time the defendant owed the plaintiff $3,000, and could not pay, and the plaintiff was pressing for payment. The parties then made a parol contract, whereby the plaintiff was to get security, and the defendant was to get a year's time in which to pay the debt. This suit is about those terms and the performance of them. The defendant got the time; the plaintiff got only a part of the security.

The master found: (1) That, for an extension of credit granted to the defendant by the plaintiff, R. A. Monroe, [103 S.C. 256]among other things, agreed to give the mortgage, and the mortgage was actually signed by him; (2) that the mortgage was never delivered, but was kept by Monroe for the purpose which he had of having his wife renounce dower; (3) that the plaintiff at first declined to accept the mortgage without a renunciation of dower; (4) that the defendant Monroe had the legal right to refuse a delivery of the mortgage without the dower renounced; (5) and that though the plaintiff was subsequently willing to take it so.

The circuit court found: (1) That Monroe only agreed to deliver a mortgage with dower renounced; and (2) that the defendant first refused to accept any other; and (3) that the two contracting parties did not agree, the one to deliver, and the other to accept, an unrenounced mortgage, and therefore they came to no common ground...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP