Heyward-Williams Co. v. Zeigler
Decision Date | 10 February 1917 |
Docket Number | 9620. |
Parties | HEYWARD-WILLIAMS CO. v. ZEIGLER ET AL. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Barnwell County; Wayne F Rice, Judge.
Action by the Heyward-Williams Company against P.J. Zeigler and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Jas. M Patterson and R. P. Searson, Jr., both of Allendale, for appellants.
C. B Searson and J. W. Vincent, both of Hampton, and Jas. A Willis, of Barnwell, for respondent.
This is an action on three promissory notes executed by the defendants, on the 9th day of March, 1914, in the respective sums of $801.90, $1,055, and $1,000, payable to the plaintiff. On the same day the plaintiff addressed to the defendants a proposed contract, which was accepted by them, as appears by the following indorsement thereon:
The contract contains the following provisions:
The contract shows that the plaintiff's approval was accordingly indorsed thereon. The defendants rely upon the following facts as a defense: That the notes in suit were executed by them in compliance with the terms of said contract. That in accordance with the second clause of the contract, the defendants sent to the plaintiff the notes and mortgage on the cotton crops of those planters, who purchased fertilizers from them. That during the latter part of August, and up to the 15th of September, 1914, said planters delivered to these defendants 53 bales of cotton, covered by said mortgages, to be applied to the notes and mortgages of said planters; and, by agreement, said cotton was sold by the plaintiff on the 14th of September, 1914, for $2,030, which cotton, they allege, the plaintiff well knew belonged to said planters, whose notes and mortgages were then held by the plaintiff as collateral security for the payment of the notes in question. That the said cotton was by operation of law applicable to the payment of said mortgages, and was by the terms of the contract applicable to the notes in suit instead of the individual indebtedness of P.J. Zeigler.
At the close of the testimony the plaintiff made a motion for the direction of a verdict on the following ground:
"That the defense attempted to set up, by the defendants, based upon the contention that the proceeds of the sales of the cotton should have been applied to the notes sued on, in this action is not sound, and the said proceeds have been credited on one of the notes of P.J. Zeigler, which credit the plaintiff had the right to make."
His honor, the presiding judge, granted the plaintiff's motion, and the defendants appealed. The motion to direct a verdict on the ground therein stated was, in effect, a demurrer on the ground that the allegations of the answer were not sufficient to constitute a defense. The respondent's attorneys say:
" The evidence, we submit, shows that the cotton was shipped by P.J. Zeigler, as an individual, and as he owed the plaintiff on other notes the plaintiff had the right, in the absence of direction from him, to apply the credit for the cotton to whichever note the plaintiff saw fit."
Their proposition is thus stated in a different form:
The provision in the contract that "it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tucker v. Hudgens
... ... 214, 118 S.E. 303; ... Carraway v. Carraway, 27 S.C. 576, 5 S.E. 157; ... Summers v. Brice, 36 S.C. 204, 15 S.E. 374; ... Heyward v. Zeigler, 106 S.C. 425, 91 S.E. 298; ... Pittman v. Raysor, 49 S.C. 469, 27 S.E. 475 ... It is ... equally true that the pledge was ... ...
-
People's Bank of Rock Hill v. People's Bank of Anderson
... ... This position is based upon the ... authority of Sanders v. Warehouse Co., 101 S.C. 381, ... 85 S.E. 900, and Heyward-Williams Co. v. Zeigler, ... 106 S.C. 425, 91 S.E. 298. I considered that the position ... taken by plaintiff's attorneys is fully supported by the ... ...
-
Little v. Rivers
... ... 12. I ... think, however, that under the facts stated the plaintiff ... is not to be regarded as a purchaser for value ... Heyward-Williams Company v. Zeigler, 106 S.C. 425, ... 91 S.E. 298. See, also, Cluff v. Merchants & Mechanics ... Bank, 40 Ga.App. 299, 149 S.E. 300 ... ...
-
Heyward Williams Co. v. Zeigler
...P.J. Zeigler and another. Judgment for defendants, and from an order granting a new trial they appeal. Appeal dismissed. See, also, 106 S.C. 425, 91 S.E. 298. M. Patterson and R. P. Searson, Jr., both of Allendale, for appellants. J. W. Vincent, of Hampton, James A. Willis, of Barnwell, C. ......