Bank v. Martin

• Decision Date: 19 July 1916
• Docket Number: (No. 9473.)
• Parties: BROOKLAND BANK . v. MARTIN et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

89 S.E. 546

(105 S.C. 72)

BROOKLAND BANK .

v.MARTIN et al.

(No. 9473.)

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 19, 1916.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; I. W. Bowman, Judge.

Action by the Brookland Bank against John F. Martin and A. W. Martin. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant A. W. Martin appeals. Affirmed.

De Pass & De Pass, of Columbia, for appellant.

D. W. Robinson, of Columbia, for respondent.

GAGE, J. Action on two notes, one for $100, and one for $2,200; verdict directed for the plaintiff; appeal by the defendant A. W. Martin.

The appellant's counsel conceded at the hearing that a verdict ought to have been directed as to the small note. The appellant's counsel also stated at the hearing that there was only one issue to be decided, and that was whether A. W. Martin signed the large note under a misrepresentation of the bank. The one exception is, that the complaint alleged a case of fraud and misrepresentation, and that the testimony tended to prove it

It is now settled that if only one reasonable conclusion may be drawn from all the testimony, then the court ought to declare that conclusion by direction to the jury. Howell v. Railroad, 99 S. C. 421, 83 S. E. 639; Dutton v. Railroad, 104 S. C. 16, 88 S. E. 263. The rule so stated, while it admits of diversity of judgment, is the only practicable rule which may be formulated.

The defendant A. W. Martin is a landlord, he was a fanner; but he removed from the farm to Brookland to open a "little store."

John Martin was a tenant on the farm and was to pay $240 rent for the year 1913; and he had been a tenant for three or four years before 1913. On March 14, 1913, John F. Martin executed to the plaintiff a note for $2,200. The defendant A. W. Martin signed his name across the back of the note and expressly guaranteed its payment.

1. At the trial he sought to prove a totally different transaction from that evidenced by the note. To do that the defendant set out to allege and prove—and that he must do to escape liability—that the real transaction was not written down, and that by reason of the deceit of the plaintiff. The burden was upon him to show that, and his failure thereabouts lets fall his defense and entitles the plaintiff to recover on a transaction all together regular and proven but for the defendant's contention.

2. The answer hardly pleads fraud by the bank; it does not in words; it does allege that the bank misrepresented the transaction, and falsely so; it does not allege that the bank had the secret and...