Hall v. Woodward

• Decision Date: 21 April 1887
• Citation: 2 S.E. 401,26 S.C. 557
• Parties: Hall, Jr., v. Woodward.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

2 S.E. 401

(26 S.C. 557)

Hall, Jr.,

v.Woodward.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Date: January 18, 2011

April 21, 1887.

1. Limitation of Actions—Joint Debtors—Presumption op Payment.

A payment made by one of four makers of a joint and several note, within the period necessary to raise the presumption of payment from lapse of time, is sufficient to rebut such presumption as to the others; following Dickson v. Gourdin, ante, 303.

2. Same—Kecovery of Judgment.

The recovery of a judgment, within the same period, against one of such makers, does not have that effect.

McIver, J. On the twenty-first of December, 1860, the defendant, together with Daniel Hall, E. j. Hall, and E. G. Palmer, as sureties of W. E. Hall, executed their joint and several note, under seal, payable to Mrs. Mob-ley, one day after the date thereof. On the back of this note certain credits, signed by the attorney of the owner and holder of the note, are indorsed as follows: "Rec'd January, 1867, on the above note, three hundred dollars in currency." "Rec'd February, 1867, of H. A. Gaillard, Adm'r, $100, on the above note." "Bal. due first January, 1880, $2,297.21, after payments by Est. of W. E. Hall and Est. of E. G. Palmer." By whom the first payment was made is not stated in the credit indorsed, but it is admitted that the defendant Woodward never made any payment on the note at all, or otherwise acknowledged its continued validity; all the payments having been made by H. A. Gaillard, as administrator of the principal debtor, W. E. Hall, and by the executor of the surety, Palmer.

On the twenty-first January, 1868, judgment was recovered against Daniel Hall alone for the balance due on the note. The plaintiff alleges that as a part of the consideration for a tract of land conveyed to him by his father, Daniel Hall, Sr., in January, 1885, he undertook to pay said judgment, and that at the time the conveyance was executed his father verbally assigned to him his right of contribution against his co-surety, Woodward. On the twenty-third of April, 1885, the plaintiff paid up the judgment, and in August following the assignment above mentioned was reduced to writing, though it bears date eighth of December, 1885, the day on which it was actually signed. These allegations on the part of the plaintiff were denied by the defendant, and the issue thus raised was not considered or decided by the circuit judge, as he rested his judgment upon another ground which will be hereinafter stated.

This action was...