Greene v. Simon Brown's Sons

• Decision Date: 28 February 1924
• Docket Number: 11429.
• Citation: 121 S.E. 597,128 S.C. 91
• Parties: GREENE v. SIMON BROWN'S SONS.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

121 S.E. 597

128 S.C. 91

GREENE v. SIMON BROWN'S SONS.

No. 11429.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

February 28, 1924

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Barnwell County; R. W Memminger, Judge.

Action by A. F. Greene against Simon Brown's Sons, a copartnership, composed of Herman Brown and Isadore Brown. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed, and a new trial granted.

Brown & Bush, of Barnwell, for appellants.

G. M Greene, of Barnwell, for respondent.

MARION J.

In action of claim and delivery the plaintiff, Greene, claimed the property in question by virtue of a chattel mortgage and rent lien given by one General Ray. The defendants alleged that possession of the property had been acquired by them under a chattel mortgage given by Ray to secure an indebtedness to them, the payment of which indebtedness had been guaranteed in writing by the plaintiff, Greene. Upon the basis of said written guaranty, the defendants set up a counterclaim against plaintiff for an amount considerably in excess of the alleged value of the property involved. The appeal raises the one question of whether the circuit judge committed error in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

The essential evidentiary facts upon which that question turns are these. The plaintiff, Greene, a resident of Augusta, Ga owned a plantation near Williston in Barnwell county. General Ray was a negro tenant on his Williston farm. The defendants Brown's Sons, were supply merchants at Blackville. In the early part of 1920 Ray was indebted to the defendants in the sum of $1,943, secured by a mortgage of "three head of stock," a wagon, etc. Ray sought to obtain advances from defendants for 1920, but was told by them that they would not run him, "unless he would get Mr. Greene to take up his indebtedness." After two or three conferences between Ray and defendants, defendants finally told Ray they "would take $1,650 for the debt." Ray then went to see his landlord, Greene, to whom he had agreed to pay as rental for the year 1920 eight bales of cotton. He told Mr. Greene that the defendants were pressing him and talking of taking his stock. Thereupon Greene wrote the following letter, and "gave it to Ray to carry to" the defendants:

"March 3, 1920.

Simon Brown Sons, Blackville, S. C.--Dear Sirs: General Ray informs me that he is due you about $1,650.00 secured by bill of sale of 2 mules 1 horse and 1 wagon and one buggy. As Ray rents from me I am writing you to say that if you will let Ray continue with his stock and chattels to make his crop I will take up his papers in full this fall for him, unless and if we should have an extremely bad year worse than we can think of now on account of the boll weevil. I will agree to pay 50 per cent. of his indebtedness anyway.

Yours truly, A. F. Greene."

Ray brought this letter to the defendants, who, "in consequence of getting" it, agreed to carry Ray over until fall; took another paper, dated March 6, and recorded March 8, 1920, in which was included the old indebtedness and an additional $1,000 to be advanced, secured by mortgage of crop and stock, etc.; and thereupon shipped Ray fertilizer to Williston, and advanced him supplies, etc. No formal or express notice of the acceptance of the offer contained in plaintiff's letter was communicated to the plaintiff.

The direction of a verdict for the plaintiff was predicated upon the view (1) that the plaintiff, Greene, was not bound by the offer set out in his letter in the absence of notice to him of its acceptance by the defendants, and (2) that there was no evidence of such notice of acceptance.

In the conclusion of the learned circuit judge that the plaintiff's proposal in writing to pay the debt of Ray was an offer or promise which required notice of its acceptance in order to ripen into a completed agreement we concur. The letter may not properly be construed as an unconditional proposal to guarantee the payment of Ray's existing indebtedness to the defendant in a certain amount. Hence the rule that no notice of acceptance is required, where the proposal is to guarantee the payment of an existing debt of another in a definite amount known to the guarantor at the time, is inapplicable. Nor does the case fall within the exception to the general rule that notice of acceptance is not required, where the proposal or promise of the guarantor is in response to and made in compliance with the request from the guarantee. See Mott Iron Works v. Clark, 87 S.C. 199, 69 S.E. 227. The plaintiff's offer to defendants to pay 50 per cent. of Ray's indebtedness of $1,650, "anyway," was, we think, clearly subject to the condition that the defendants would "let Ray continue with his stock and chattels to make his crop." It was not in compliance with defendants'...