Bankers Trust of South Carolina v. Collins, 20571
| Decision Date | 27 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 20571,20571 |
| Citation | 239 S.E.2d 889,270 S.C. 26 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | BANKERS TRUST OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent, v. Fred J. COLLINS, Jr., Appellant. |
Robert M. Ariail and Paul J. Foster, Jr., of Foster & Richardson, Greenville, for appellant.
O. Doyle Martin and Louis G. Sullivan, II, Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, Greenville, for respondent.
This action was commenced by Bankers Trust of South Carolina, hereafter referred to as "the Bank," against Fred J. Collins, Jr., hereafter referred to as "Collins," to recover on a general guaranty agreement. The guaranty agreement was executed by Collins to insure the payment of a promissory note in the amount of $46,242.99 from Fay A. Cannon to the Bank. The Bank sought to recover the amount of $8,209.25, together with interest and attorney's fees. The action came on to be tried before a jury and resulted in a directed verdict in favor of the Bank. Collins appeals.
During the course of the trial, Collins sought to introduce evidence to support the defense of estoppel. Out of the presence of the jury, Collins proffered the testimony of Phillip Harrison, a former employee of the Bank who handled the making of the note and the guaranty agreement; Collins also testified. Through this testimony, Collins attempted to show that he was misled by the conduct of the Bank's agents into believing that the guaranty was to terminate at the end of six months, after which time he would no longer be responsible for the note. The lower court refused to admit the proffered testimony on the grounds that the defense of estoppel was not pled in Collins' answer.
Collins now argues that the lower court was in error in refusing to allow him to introduce evidence to make out the defense of estoppel. The rule followed in South Carolina is that equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais need not be specifically pleaded, in the absence of a statute to the contrary. Spencer v. Republic National Life Ins., 243 S.C. 317, 133 S.E.2d 826, 829 (1963); Lee v. Southern Ry. Co., 228 S.C. 240, 89 S.E.2d 431, 432 (1955). Crescent Co. of Spartanburg, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of North America, 266 S.C. 598, 603, 225 S.E.2d 656 (1976).
We are of the opinion that the evidence proffered by Collins would not have altered the ultimate disposition reached by the court.
Although estoppel need not always be pleaded, the proffered testimony was irrelevant. The talk (and alleged understanding) which preceded the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Waldron, Civ. A. No. 75-107.
...cannot impeach the express terms of the agreement to establish that the agreement has been terminated. Bankers Trust of South Carolina v. Collins, 270 S.C. 26, 239 S.E.2d 889 (1977). In Bankers Trust v. Collins, the South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously held in a per curiam decision that......