Case ID: sc_104/html/0350-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Hydrick.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

9379
    HARRISON v. CROSBY.
    (88 S. E. 1102.)
    Bills and Notes — Issues—Direction op Verdict.- — -In an action on a promissory note by an indorsee thereof, in which the testimony tended to show plaintiff acquired the note by purchase for value before maturity without notice of any failure of consideration or other infirmity in the note, and defendant had no testimony showing such notice, a verdict for the plaintiff should have been directed.
    Before'Hon. C. J. Ramage, special Judge, October, 1914.
    Reversed.
    Action by C. W. Harrison against S. W. Crosby. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    
      Mr. B. B. Clarke, for appellant,
    cites: As to presumption in favor of holder as indorsee for value, etc.: 87 S. C. 78; 28 S. C. 143; 32 S. C. 538. Charge: 64 S. C. 509; 77 S. C. 39. '
    
      Mr. W. B. de Loach, for respondent,
    cites: As to circumstantial evidence of holder's bad faith: 91 S. C. 461.
    April 13, 1916.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hydrick.

This case is controlled by the decision in Bank v. Stackhouse, 91 S. C. 455, 74 S. E. 977, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 454, which has been reaffirmed in numerous cases, some of' which are cited in Givens v. Bank, 103 S. C. 174, 86 S. E. 24. See, also, Cannon v. Clarendon Hardware Co., 103 S. C. 538, 88 S. E. 284. The verdict should have been directed for plaintiff.

Judgment reversed.

Messrs. Justices Watts and Gage concur in the opinion announced.

Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Fraser did not sit in this case, and did not participate in the decision.