State Agricultural & Mechanical Soc. of South Carolina v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 29 March 1916
• Docket Number: 9361.
• Citation: State Agricultural & Mechanical Soc. of South Carolina v. Taylor, 88 S.E. 372, 104 S.C. 167 (S.C. 1916)
• Parties: STATE AGRICULTURAL & MECHANICAL SOC. OF SOUTH CAROLINA v. TAYLOR ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

88 S.E. 372

104 S.C. 167

STATE AGRICULTURAL & MECHANICAL SOC. OF SOUTH CAROLINA v. TAYLOR ET AL.

No. 9361.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

March 29, 1916

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; H. F Rice, Judge.

Action by the State Agricultural & Mechanical Society of South Carolina against Mark Taylor and the Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

R. H Welch and Frank G. Tompkins, both of Columbia, for appellants.

D. W Robinson and J. B. Murphy, both of Columbia, for respondent.

WATTS J.

This was an action by plaintiff against the defendants for an alleged breach of bond. Defendants admitted signing the bond, but denied liability thereon or breach thereof.

The case was tried at the summer term of court, 1915, for Richland county, before Judge Rice and a jury, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1,500. After entry of judgment defendants appeal. There are 21 exceptions, but the exceptions were argued under three general heads: (1) Was the contract between the principal and obligee of the bond materially altered or varied so as to relieve the surety? The complaint alleges in both causes of action that the bond was given to secure a contract in accordance with the proposal of J. M. Cantey, agent of the plaintiff, accepted by G. A. Guignard for the committee. The defendant surety company became bound on August 25, 1911, for the faithful performance by the contractor, Taylor, of his agreement to tear down a certain steel building then at Greensboro, N. C., and re-erect the same for the plaintiff near Columbia, S.C. The bond stated:

"Whereas, the principal has entered into a written contract, dated August 22, 1911, with said obligee for furnishing labor and material necessary for the tearing down of a certain steel building now located at Greensboro, N. C., and erecting the same on a new site at Columbia, S. C., in accordance with the proposal to J. M. Cantey and acceptance by G. A. Guignard for committee under date August 22, 1911."

The company is to indemnify the obligee "against any loss or damage directly arising by reason of the failure of the principal to faithfully perform said contract."

Mr. Taylor's proposal, which was accepted, was:

"I will take down the steel building and load on cars at Greensboro, N. C., unload and rebuild at fair grounds in the city of Columbia as it stands, for the sum of six thousand dollars."

The letter of acceptance by Mr. Guignard to this proposal concludes:

"Of course, we will expect you to give sufficient and satisfactory bond for faithful performance of the contract to be later drawn."

This letter was dated August 22d. On August 25, 1911, the contract was formally executed, and Taylor told that he would be required to give bond. The bond itself was not given until three or four weeks later. The changes in the contract were made before the bond was actually signed, as the evidence clearly establishes. This is shown by the evidence of the defendants' witnesses Mr. Harry Cantey and Mark Taylor. The letters referred to in the bond itself carried notice to the defendants that a contract was to be drawn.

J. M. Cantey, who was in the insurance and surety bond business, agent of the Richland Savings Bank & Trust Company for the defendants, through them procured the bond in question. The defendants, through its agents, had knowledge of the extended time taken by the contractor, Taylor.

Mr. Harry Cantey, who had charge of the execution and delivery of the bond and of the surety company business, knew that the building was not completed at the time contracted for it to be finished. There was never any offer to return the premium. A bill was made out for the premium on this bond and presented on March 29, 1912, and paid by the plaintiff on April 12, 1912. This was nearly two months after the building had collapsed, and more than a month after plaintiff had written a notice and mailed to defendants that Taylor had breached the contract.

The exceptions in a measure depend largely as to the law by which bonds of surety companies are to be construed. We are of opinion that they should not be given the strict construction that would be given one who was a surety as an individual but the surety companies are in business for profit or hire. The individual...