Marion Production Credit Ass'n v. Smith, 16599
| Decision Date | 05 March 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 16599,16599 |
| Parties | MARION PRODUCTION CREDIT ASS'N v. SMITH. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Jenerette & Jenerette, Mullins, for appellant.
J. Malcolm McLendon, Marion, for respondent.
This is an action commenced on April 9, 1951, on a promissory note signed by the appellant, and payable to the order of the respondent, dated May 29, 1950, in the principal sum of $9,329.43, due October 1, 1950, and with interest at 5 1/2 per cent. The complaint sets forth the terms of the note in full, that it had not been paid, and that there was due thereon the sum of $8,675, with interest from April 2, 1951, and attorney's fees in accord with the terms of the note.
The appellant filed a demurrer and an answer to the complaint. His answer admits the execution and delivery of the note alleged in the complaint and the amount due thereon. As a defense he alleges that the Court is without jurisdiction of the appellant because of respondent's failure to allege the residence of appellant and further, that appellant had made payments on the note and had paid the interest to April 2, 1951, and that for this valuable consideration respondent entered into an agreement with appellant to carry the note over a period of years conditioned upon the appellant making a substantial reduction each year in the sum of $1,500 plus interest, and to keep the interest paid from April 2, 1952, up to and including the final date of full payment of the obligation. The appellant also counterclaimed for the breach of this alleged agreement.
Upon notice and affidavits duly served by respondent and after arguments by Counsel for the appellant and the respondent, Judge G. Badger Baker, on May 31, 1951, issued his Order wherein it was adjudged that the appellant's demurrer was without merit and was, therefore, overruled and stricken, and that the appellant's answer was frivolous, sham and irrelevant and was, therefore, stricken, and the respondent was given judgment against the appellant for the sum of $8,675, with interest from April 2, 1951, at 5 1/2% per annum, together with a reasonable attorney's fee of not less than 10% and costs of the action.
Notice of intention to appeal to the Supreme Court was duly served. After the service of this Notice, appellant abandoned so much of the appeal as was taken to the Order striking the demurrer, and also abandoned the Second Defense of his answer as was made by way of a counterclaim; and upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Kash & Karry Wholesale, Inc.
...at 189, 26 S.E.2d at 503, and the creditor was free to insist upon the terms of the note. Similarly, in Marion Production Credit Ass'n v. Smith, 221 S.C. 172, 69 S.E.2d 705 (1952), the debtor attempted to avoid the creditor's acceleration of a note by claiming that the creditor had agreed t......
-
Castell v. Stephenson Finance Co.
...203 S.C. 183, 26 S.E.2d 501; Atlantic Joint Stock Land Bank of Raleigh v. Latta, 164 S.C. 56, 162 S.E. 68; Marion Production Credit Ass'n. v. Smith, 221 S.C. 172, 69 S.E.2d 705. The charge that Stephenson was guilty of a conversion of plaintiff's truck was apparently based upon the further ......
-
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Waldron, Civ. A. No. 75-107.
...consideration for an agreement to release the other guarantors from their personal liabilities. Marion Production Credit Association v. Smith, 221 S.C. 172, 69 S.E.2d 705 (1952); Rabon v. State Finance Corporation, 203 S.C. 183, 26 S.E.2d 501 The defendants have repeatedly asserted that the......
-
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Waldron
...that a renewal note does not constitute adequate consideration for an agreement to modify the debt. Marion Production Credit Association v. Smith, 221 S.C. 172, 69 S.E.2d 705 (1952); Rabon v. State Finance Corp., 203 S.C. 183, 26 S.E.2d 501 (1943). Those asserting payment as a defense have ......