Heyward Williams Co. v. Zeigler

• Decision Date: 21 March 1918
• Docket Number: 9932.
• Parties: HEYWARD WILLIAMS CO. v. ZEIGLER ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

96 S.E. 119

109 S.C. 167

HEYWARD WILLIAMS CO. v. ZEIGLER ET AL.

No. 9932.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 21, 1918

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Barnwell County; Frank B Gary, Judge.

Suit by the Heyward Williams Company against 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.

James M. Patterson and R. P. Searson, Jr., both of Allendale, for appellants.

J. W Vincent, of Hampton, James A. Willis, of Barnwell, C. B Searson, of Hampton, and R. C. Holman, of Barnwell, for respondent.

FRASER J.

This case was tried before his honor, Judge Frank B. Gary, and a jury. In his charge his honor makes the following statement of the issues:

"This plaintiff brought suit upon three notes; $801 alleged to be due October 15, 1914, $1,055 alleged to be due November 1, 1914, and $1,000 alleged to be due November 15, 1914. The plaintiff alleges that these defendants executed those three notes to the plaintiff and thereby promised to pay those amounts at the times specified with interest after maturity at 8 per cent. That is their cause of action. The defendants come in and admit that they executed the notes, but they say that at the time the notes were executed there was also executed a contract between the plaintiff and these two defendants; that one of the terms of that contract was that the fertilizer for which these notes were given should be sold to farmers, notes and mortgages taken for the amount sold to them, and the notes so taken should be turned over to these plaintiffs as collateral security to these three notes. They allege that there was turned over to these plaintiffs a large number of these farmers' notes and mortgages, and that the cotton covered by those notes and mortgages was turned over to these plaintiffs, that is, a sufficient amount to pay the first two notes, and the third note was not due at the time of the bringing of this action. The defendants claim further that they executed a mortgage of some stock, and that without any just cause or excuse these plaintiffs levied on that stock and sold it and treated it in such a manner--a negligent, careless, and wanton way--as to damage them to the extent of $1,500. That is the contention of the defendants. The plaintiffs come back and admit that there was executed a contract requiring that these farmers' notes should

...