Thompson v. Shaw Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 18 April 1924
• Docket Number: 11476.
• Citation: 122 S.E. 669,128 S.C. 171
• Parties: THOMPSON v. SHAW MOTOR CO. ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

122 S.E. 669

128 S.C. 171

THOMPSON v. SHAW MOTOR CO. ET AL.

No. 11476.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

April 18, 1924

Petition for Rehearing Dismissed May 10, 1924.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Sumter County; C. M Efird, Special Judge.

Action by Pearl Aman Thompson against the Shaw Motor Company and H C. Bland. Judgment for plaintiff, and the last-named defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Harby Nash & Hodges, of Sumter, and Kelley & Hinds, of Kingstree for appellant.

Lee & Moise, of Sumter, for respondent.

WATTS J.

"This was an action commenced about April 13, 1922, and tried before his honor, Special Judge C. M. Efird, at the spring term of 1923 of the court of common pleas for Sumter county, resulting in a verdict against the defendants, Shaw Motor Company and H. C. Bland, in the sum of $4,714.99. A motion for new trial was duly made and argued, and was refused by the presiding judge by an order dated June 6, 1923. The defendant H. C. Bland within due time gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court from the rulings of the court, verdict of the jury, and judgment entered or to be entered thereon."

The exceptions, six in number, raise these questions: That the testimony in the case admits of no other inference than that D. C. Shaw had no apparent authority in Columbia as agent of the Shaw Motor Company; that he had no actual authority to borrow money or execute the note in question; that the note was never ratified by the Shaw Motor Company, and was purely an accommodation note for the benefit of D. C. Shaw; that his honor erred in not instructing the jury in accordance with the requests submitted on behalf of the defendants; that under the Bulk Sales Law only a presumption of fraud arose against the defendant Bland, and that his honor was in error in not permitting the jury to say from all the facts and circumstances of the case whether or not such a presumption had been rebutted. As to whether or not D. C. Shaw had authority actual or apparent as agent of the Shaw Motor Company to execute the note sued on that is settled by the answer in the case of Shaw Motor Company. It says:

"And at the time said note in question was given D. C. Shaw was neither an officer, director, or stockholder of the Shaw Motor Company, but was its general agent, and had authority to transact business for it in its name; that the note in question was signed by D. C. Shaw."

Here is an admission that D. C. Shaw was the general agent of the company and signed the note. The plaintiff who took the note...