Moorhead v. First Piedmont Bank and Trust Co.
| Citation | 256 S.E.2d 414,273 S.C. 356 |
| Decision Date | 25 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 20994,20994 |
| Parties | Alexander C. MOORHEAD, Appellant, v. FIRST PIEDMONT BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
J. Kendall Few, Greenville, for appellant.
B. O. Thomason, Jr., Mason A. Goldsmith and Carroll H. Roe, Jr., Greenville, for respondent.
This action for damages resulted in an order by the trial judge directing a verdict in favor of defendant (respondent). Appeal is from that order. We affirm.
Appellant (plaintiff) Moorhead was a customer of respondent, First Piedmont Bank and Trust Company, and this action arose out of alleged dealings relative to loan transactions between the parties. Appellant claims that respondent, acting through its President, Philip Hungerford, fraudulently induced him to purchase a worthless paper title to nine thousand (9000) acres of supposedly valuable coal-producing land in Grundy County, Tennessee, from Southeastern Exploration and Development Company, another customer of respondent Bank, knowing that Southeastern's title to the land was defective and the mineral rights had been reserved to another party.
Although appellant's complaint contained seven (7) separate causes of action, only five were left at the conclusion of the testimony for consideration: (1) Fraud; (2) Breach of fiduciary relations; (3) Coercion and duress; (4) Violation of the Usury statute; and (5) Violation of banking statutes and regulations. The trial judge directed a verdict for respondent on all issues, and appellant argues his appeal therefrom under nine (9) questions. The grounds of appeal involve, for the most part, the sufficiency of the facts to require submission of the case to the jury and the admissibility of testimony. We find it unnecessary to discuss the evidentiary questions since, in our view, the record so overwhelmingly sustains the action of the trial judge in granting the directed verdict as to render any evidentiary rulings harmless, even if erroneous.
The first business transactions between appellant and respondent apparently took place in January 1973, when appellant agreed to personally endorse a delinquent obligation of Carolina Color, Inc., one of several corporations with which appellant was connected. Thereafter, over the next eighteen (18) months, respondent made several secured and unsecured loans to appellant totaling $195,000.00. By the Summer of 1974, appellant's loans with respondent were delinquent and respondent's President, Hungerford, began monitoring appellant's repayment progress as well as the collateralization of his obligations.
Thereafter, on September 24, 1974, Southeastern Exploration and Development Company conveyed to appellant a 9,000 acre tract of land located in Tennessee, which was in turn pledged to respondent as security for a note in the amount of $645,000.00 representing the prior indebtedness of appellant in the amount of $195,000.00 and $450,000.00 representing the debt owed to Southeastern Exploration and Development Company for the purchase of the 9,000 acre tract. The circumstances surrounding the acquisition by appellant of title to the 9,000 acre tract are involved in this action.
Appellant asserts that he was fraudulently induced by respondent, through its president into purchasing title to 9,000 acres of worthless property for $450,000.00 which, in turn, was used as collateral for his outstanding notes. He maintains that respondent's purpose in this transaction was to make it appear to the bank examiners that appellant's pre-existing indebtedness was adequately collateralized.
In order to recover upon the grounds of actual fraud based on representation, the following elements must be shown: (1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Regions Bank v. Schmauch
...injury. First State Sav. & Loan v. Phelps, 299 S.C. 441, 446-47, 385 S.E.2d 821, 824 (1989); Moorhead v. First Piedmont Bank & Trust, 273 S.C. 356, 359, 256 S.E.2d 414, 416 (1979); Kiriakides v. Atlas Food Sys. & Servs., Inc., 338 S.C. 572, 586, 527 S.E.2d 371, 378 (Ct.App.2000); Ardis v. C......
-
Redwend Ltd. Partnership v. Edwards
...consequent and proximate injury. First State Sav. & Loan v. Phelps, 299 S.C. 441, 385 S.E.2d 821 (1989); Moorhead v. First Piedmont Bank & Trust Co., 273 S.C. 356, 256 S.E.2d 414 (1979). In a claim for the tort of negligent misrepresentation where the damage alleged is a pecuniary loss, the......
-
Warner v. Lexington Med. Ctr.
...truth; (8) the hearer's right to rely thereon; and (9) the hearer's consequent and proximate injury.Moorhead v. First Piedmont Bank and Tr. Co., 273 S.C. 356, 359, 256 S.E.2d 414, 416 (1979) (citing O'Shields v. S. Fountain Mobile Homes, 262 S.C. 276, 282, 204 S.E.2d 50, 52 (1974)). "Where ......
-
Weir v. Citicorp Nat. Services, Inc.
...to exclusion. A correct decision of the trial court on the wrong ground will be affirmed on appeal. Moorhead v. First Piedmont Bank & Trust Co., 273 S.C. 356, 256 S.E.2d 414 (1979). Therefore, we hold the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding the Furthermore, we do not see h......