Gaines v. Durham

• Decision Date: 08 May 1923
• Docket Number: 11215.
• Parties: GAINES v. DURHAM ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

117 S.E. 732

124 S.C. 435

GAINES v. DURHAM ET AL.

No. 11215.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

May 8, 1923

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Pickens County; T. J Mauldin, Judge.

Action by R. G. Gaines against C. C. Durham and C. G. Masters. Judgment for plaintiff, and the last-named defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The circumstances in the Rice v. Medlin Case, referred to in the opinion, are substantially as follows:

The complaint alleged:

"That between the 26th day of January, 1918, and the 9th day of November, 1918, he (plaintiff) sold and delivered unto the defendant C. E. Medlin goods, wares, and merchandise * * * at the request, instance, and order of the defendant W. I Rice, and the said W. I. Rice guaranteed the payment of the said amount, that no part of said amount has been paid except the sum of $146.15, leaving a balance due unto the said A. Rice by the said C. E. Medlin and W. I Rice, the sum of $94.83. * * *"

The plaintiff testified:

"* * * I live in the town of Bamberg, S. C., own and run a general mercantile business in said town. I make advances to quite a number of farmers and their tenants. During the year 1918, I made advances in merchandise unto the defendants in this case. Medlin was living on the plantation of W. I. Rice. Medlin was running a share crop for W. I. Rice. On January 26, 1918, W. I. Rice came into my store and brought C. E. Medlin with him and made arrangements with me to make advances unto Medlin for the current year. I opened the account in the name of C. E. Medlin and W. I. Rice. W. I. Rice told me he would be responsible for the account of Medlin, as he (Medlin) was running a share crop for him. I would not have sold the goods to Medlin without the guarantee of W. I. Rice. The advances were sold to the defendants herein for the sole purpose of aiding the defendant Medlin to make a crop for himself and W. I. Rice. * * * The original transaction was made between both the defendants, and the defendant W. I. Rice had as much interest in the account as the defendant Medlin. * * *"

Cross-examination:

"* * * I have no instrument in writing from W. I. Rice guaranteeing the payment of these goods. W. I. Rice told me that, 'I am worth the money, and I will pay this account.' I took a lien over the crop of Medlin. I thought the crop would be sufficient to pay the account. I would not have taken the lien without the guarantee of W. I. Rice. This guarantee was verbal in the presence of witnesses. Medlin has paid me a part of this account. In the event that Medlin did not pay me, I expected W. I. Rice to pay the same as guarantor. I did not surrender the lien of Medlin. * * *"

Defendant C. E. Medlin testified:

"* * * At the time I went to the store of A. Rice to arrange for the advances, W. I. Rice, my landlord, went with me. At the time we went to the store of A. Rice to arrange for the advances, W. I. Rice requested A. Rice to let me have them, and that he would pay the account. When the amount ran out A. Rice refused to let me have additional advances, and I told W. I. Rice as much, and W. I. Rice came out to Bamberg and made arrangements with A. Rice for me to get more goods, and came back home and told me that he had arranged same."

Cross-examination:

"The advances were made to me by A. Rice. A. Rice let me have these goods upon W. I. Rice guaranteeing to pay them. I gave A. Rice a lien over my half of the crop. * * *"

Motion for nonsuit was refused, and the magistrate rendered the following judgment:

"From the testimony, I find that W. I. Rice did not guarantee the account as a collateral promise, but that he had such a direct interest in the matter as to take the case out of the statute of frauds, as is laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Robertson v. Hunter, 29 S.C. 13, 14, and also in the case of Turner v. Lyles, 68 S.C. 396."

The circuit court affirmed the judgment of the magistrate for the reasons stated therein.

The exceptions to the judgment of the circuit court are as follows:

"* * * His honor, the presiding judge, erred, it is respectfully submitted, in not entering a nonsuit as to the defendant W. I. Rice upon the following grounds, to wit:

"(1) Because it clearly appears from the testimony that the alleged promise by the defendant, if any, was collateral, and therefore, void under the statute of frauds.

" (2) His Honor erred, it is respectfully submitted, in not holding that under the evidence the defendant Medlin, the party who received the goods, was primarily liable for the account; and under the testimony of the plaintiff when he stated that 'in the event that Medlin did not pay me, I expected W. I. Rice to pay the same as guarantor,' his honor should have held that the alleged undertaking, on that part of W. I. Rice, was collateral, and therefore not enforceable.

"(3) His honor erred, it is respectfully submitted, in distinguishing the case of Turner v. Lyles, 68 S.C. 396, from the case at bar, whereas his honor should have held that there was no new consideration moving to the defendant in the case at bar; although the defendant W. I. Rice may have been interested in the share crop with Medlin, such interest would not constitute a new consideration, as defined by the court in the case of Turner v. Lyles, supra.

Martin & Blythe, of Greenville, and Craig & Keith, of Pickens, for appellant.

Carey & Carey, of Pickens, for respondent.

COTHRAN J.

Action for $71.61 upon an account for fertilizer sold by the plaintiff to the defendants.

Masters owned the land upon which the fertilizer was to be used, and Durham was his tenant.

The evidence tends to show that Durham applied to the plaintiff for the fertilizer, and the plaintiff, knowing that Durham was a tenant upon the land of Masters, before allowing Durham to obtain the fertilizer, went to Masters and asked him about selling to Durham; that Masters said, "Let Durham have what he wants and I will see that it is paid;" that Durham got the fertilizer, and it was charged upon the plaintiff's books to both Durham and Masters; that plaintiff made frequent efforts to collect from Durham and failing, made demand upon Masters, which being refused, suit was instituted in magistrate's court against both.

The case was tried by a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against Masters alone; no reference being made to Durham.

Defendant Masters appealed to the circuit court, taking by his exceptions the following positions: (1) That the undertaking of Masters was not an original one but collateral, to answer for the debt of Durham, and, not being in writing, was obnoxious to the statute of frauds. (2) That the undertaking of Masters being collateral only, if valid, the verdict should have been against both defendants.

Upon the hearing of the appeal, the circuit judge overruled the defendant's exceptions and affirmed the judgment of the magistrate's court.

The defendant now appeals to this court upon the same grounds made upon the appeal to the circuit court.

As to the first position: Masters being the landlord of Durham was vitally interested in his obtaining fertilizer for use in the cultivation of the crop, and under these circumstances his undertaking to see that what he obtained was paid for was an original and not a collateral undertaking .

In Lorick v. Caldwell, 85 S.C. 94, 67 S.E. 143, the court approved the following:

"Wherever the main purpose and object of the promisor is, not to answer for another, but to subserve some purpose of his own, his promise is not within the statute, although it may be in form, a promise to pay the debt of another."

In Tindal v. Touchberry, 3 Strob. 177, 49 Am. Dec. 637, it is said:

"In the case of Farley v. Cleveland (4 Cow. N.Y. 432) it was held that where the promise was founded upon a new and original consideration, of benefit to the defendant, or hurt to the plaintiff, the subsisting liability of the original debtor was no objection to the recovery."

In Hindman v. Langford, 3 Strob. 207, quoting from the syllabus, it is held:

"A promise is taken out of the statute by a new and distinct consideration, coextensive with it, and moving not to the third person, but to the

...