Case ID: scl_19/html/0039-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Johnson J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nathan Sims (bearer) v. J. R. Lyles & T. Stewart.
    
      Tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, at Newberry — Fall Term, 1832.
    This was an action on a promissory note, given by the defendants to Jemima G. Henderson “ or bearer.” After her death and after-the note became due, Nancy Henderson, her mother, passed it to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration. Davis Caldwell is the administrator of Jemima G. Henderson. On the al, the defence relied on ivas that the note in suit was the property of the estate of Jemima G. Henderson, and her administrator, only entitled to recover on it; that Nancy Henderson had fraudulently obtained possession of it and transferred it to the plaintiff, who therefore had no legal title to it. There was however proof that the plaintiff had notice of any fraud on the part of Nancy Henderson, if any such existed. — ■ The presiding judge charged the jury that the plaintiff was entitled to a recovery, and they accordingly found a verdict in his favor, and the defendants now move to set it aside, and for a new trial on the ground of misdirections
    
      a tma juu 'tiifeíbie”0^ tdiedVtoyi4coTo^ have been fraua-holder' -
    
      Dunlap & Summer, for the motion.
    Caldwell & Fair, contra.
   Johnson J.

According to the report, it would seem that the only defence interposed was at the instance of a stranger to the record, and was permitted to be gone into as an indulgence to his counsel. In that view of the case, the defence could avail nothing. If Davis Caldwell, had. any interest in the subject matter of the suit, his only mode of prosecuting it was by a suit against one or other of the parties.

We think also, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover on the merits. The case, so far as we are able to collect from the notes of the evidence, taken by the presiding judge, and sent up with his report appears to be this. The defendants gave the notes in suit payable to Jemima G. Henderson “or bearer.”— After her death, and after the notes became due, Nancy Henderson, her mother, passed them to the plaintiff for value. Davis Caldwell is the administrator of Jemima G. Henderson, and the claim interposed by him, is, that Nancy Henderson, the mother, fraudulently possessed herself of them. Conceding ’ this to be true, there is no proof of notice to the plaintiff, and the rule is very clear that the plaintiff is entitled to recover. In Peacock v. Rhodes, Doug. 632, a bill endorsed in blank had been stolen from the holder, and it was, notwithstanding, held that the plaintiff, the holder for value, without notice, was entitled to recover. So in Grant v. Vaughn, 3 Bur. 1615, where a bill had been lost after due, and came to the hands of the plaintiff for value. See also Proctor v. McCall, 2 Bail. 208.

The other grounds of the motion are irrelevant, or do not arise out of the report.

Motion dismissed.

O’Neall & Harper, J’s. concurred.