Martin v. Home Bank

• Decision Date: 10 August 1912
• Citation: 75 S.E. 404,92 S.C. 226
• Parties: MARTIN v. HOME BANK.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

75 S.E. 404

92 S.C. 226

MARTIN v. HOME BANK.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

August 10, 1912

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Lexington County; Geo. W Gage, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by T. L. Martin against the Home Bank. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

A. D Martin, of Lexington, and De Pass & De Pass, for appellant. Graham & Sturkie, of Lexington, and W. H. Sharpe, of Edmund for respondent.

HYDRICK J.

Before considering the merits of this appeal, we desire to call attention of counsel to the fact that, notwithstanding only one point is presented for decision, and that a question of law, which, as will be seen, could have been stated in less than 2 pages, the "case" contains 175 pages of printed matter. The pleadings, the stenographer's notes of evidence, the exhibits, and the judge's charge are set out in full. This is not only in violation of rule 5 of this court, but is a useless waste of appellant's money in printing unnecessary matter. But we are more concerned about the unnecessary tax upon the time and patience of the court when there is so much useful work to do. If the bar will not heed the admonitions of the court and comply with the rules, in the preparation of their "cases" for appeal, the court will be compelled, in self-defense, to take some steps to enforce compliance with the rules.

For several years prior to 1906, plaintiff kept an account with defendant. He had frequently overdrawn his account. On May 14, 1906, he gave defendant a note, secured by chattel mortgage, to secure an overdraft of $1,300. The note was due on August 14th. At the time it was given, plaintiff had a claim against the Seaboard Air Line Railway for something over $500, which he was expecting to collect daily, and he agreed that if the bank would take his note for the overdraft he would apply the amount due him by the railway company to the note, as soon as it was collected. On June 26th plaintiff received a check for the claim which he indorsed and sent to the bank to be deposited to his account, along with several other items on the same deposit slip. The bank applied the railway check as a credit on his note, notwithstanding it was not then due. Plaintiff gave several checks on the bank, payment of which was refused by the bank for lack of funds. If the $500 check had been deposited to his credit, there would have been enough to his credit to...