Doyle v. Hill

• Decision Date: 05 October 1906
• Citation: Doyle v. Hill, 75 S.C. 261, 55 S.E. 446 (S.C. 1906)
• Parties: DOYLE v. HILL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

55 S.E. 446

75 S.C. 261

DOYLE v. HILL.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 5, 1906

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Oconee County; Dantzler Judge.

Action by W. R. Doyle against J. B. Hill. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. E Boggs and J. P. Cary, for appellant. R. T. Jaynes, for respondent.

JONES J.

The defendant gave his promissory note, dated July 16, 1902, to W. A. Barton, agent for the Travelers' Insurance Company for $116.61, payable December 1, 1902, which on its face was to secure payment of premium on policy No. 127,683, due July 21, 1902. Shortly after the policy was delivered to defendant he returned it to the insurance company, stating his objection by letter, which gave rise to considerable correspondence, in which the company endeavored to meet his objections, insisting on his retaining the policy and declining to surrender the note. The note was transferred after maturity to plaintiff, who brought this action thereon. The defendant, among other things, pleaded failure of consideration, and on the trial offered evidence to show that the application, which was made a part of the contract of insurance, contained the answer "No" to the question whether he ever had piles, which was a false statement by the medical examiner as to defendant's true answer, which was ""Yes," the contention being that the policy was thereby rendered void, and hence that the note was without consideration. The circuit court, after admitting the testimony, later, on motion of plaintiff's counsel, struck in out on the ground that defendant could not offer parol testimony to vary or contradict the contract of insurance as written, including the application. The exceptions taken altogether and liberally construed allege error in the ruling above indicated. It is contended that the ruling was incorrect, for two reasons: (1) Fraud being charged, the rule excluding parol evidence does not apply. Mason v. Telegraph Co., 71 S.C. 150, 50 S.E. 781. (2) It is competent to show that the note was without consideration; citing, among other cases, McGrath & Byrum v. Barnes, 13 S.C. 332 36 Am. Rep. 687, and Groesbeck v. Marshall, 44 S.C 544, 22 S.E. 743. There would be great force in appellant's contention if the testimony offered really tended to show that the policy was void and therefore that the note was without consideration. On the contrary, the testimony offered tended to show...