Bank Of Saluda v. Feaster

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: WOODS
• Citation: 87 S.C. 95,68 S.E. 1045
• Parties: BANK OF SALUDA v. FEASTER et al.
• Decision Date: 04 October 1910

68 S.E. 1045
87 S.C. 95

BANK OF SALUDA
v.
FEASTER et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Oct. 4, 1910.

1. Pleading (§ 20^*)—Allegations in the Alternative.

An allegation in the alternative in a pleading as a general rule is bad; but it is sometimes permissible, when from the nature of the case the party pleading cannot fairly know with certainty which of two conditions exists, either of which would sustain his defense.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 43; Dec. Dig. § 20.*]

2. Pleading (§ 8*) — Conclusions—Allegations of Facts.

When the answer requires the allegation of notice to plaintiff, and it is permissible to state, in the alternative, that plaintiff had or ought to have had the knowledge which would defeat his recovery, the facts relied on to constitute knowledge should be alleged, otherwise there would be but an expression of defendant's opinion as to an inference that ought to be drawn from undisclosed facts.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 12-28 1/2; Dec. Dig. § 8.*]

3. Pleading (§ 307*)—Motion to Make More Certain.,

Ordinarily the remedy for the defect of an answer in alleging that plaintiff had or ought to have had the knowledge which would defeat his recovery without allegation of the facts is by motion to make more definite and certain.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. §§ 1173-1193; Dec. Dig. § 367.*]

4. Pleading (§ 364*)—Striking Out Irrelevant Matter.

Where the answer alleges that from certain facts plaintiff was chargeable with notice, and the facts have no tendency to support the inference, the allegation is properly stricken out as irrelevant.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading. Cent. Dig. §§ 1173-1174 1/2, 1176; Dec. Dig. § 364.*]

5. Bills and Notes (§ 337*)—Bona Fide Purchaser—Notice.

That plaintiff, indorsee of a check given by F. to M., held a chattel mortgage on a mule given by A., did not tend to show notice to it that the check was fraudulently procured by M. in the sale to F. of a junior mortgage on the mule.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. § 818; Dec. Dig. § 337.*]

6. Appeal and Error (§ 1042*)—Harmless Error.

Striking out of a defense an allegation of notice to plaintiff which would defeat recovery, if error, was harmless; the allegation being made in better form in another defense.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § 4111; Dec. Dig. § 1042.*]

7. Bills and Notes (§ 370*)—Bona Fide Purchaser—Defenses.

Failure of consideration for a check and consequent undertaking of the drawer to stop payment is no defense to an action by the indorsee of the check who is not charged with notice of such failure.

[EM. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. § 963; Dec. Dig. § 370.*]

8. Bills and Notes (§ 335*)—Bona Fide Purchaser.

That plaintiff, before paying anything for a check as indorsee, had notice of want of consideration for it, is a defense.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. § 817; Dec. Dig. § 335.*]

9. Pleading (§ 34*)—Separate Defenses.

As against the allegation in a separate defense in an action on a check that plaintiff, before paying anything for it as indorsee, had notice that it was without consideration, it cannot be assumed that it was meant to be alleged that such notice was to be inferred from the same facts alleged in another defense as notice, but insufficient to constitute it.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 67; Dec. Dig. § 34.*]

10. Bills and Notes (§ 363*)—Indorsement of Check for Collection—Recovery by Indorsee.

An indorsee for collection of a check can recover thereon only such part of the amount thereof as he advanced to the payee before receiving notice of want of consideration therefor.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent Dig. §§ 790, 791; Dec. Dig. § 363.*]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Saluda County; R. C. Watts, Judge.

Action by the Bank of Saluda against L. R. Feaster and another. From an order, defendants appeal. Affirmed in part, and reversed in part.

Barrett Jones, for L. R. Feaster. Geo. Bell Timmerman, for Citizens' Bank of Batesburg.

Thurmond & Ramage, for respondent.

WOODS, J. This appeal is from an...