The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1894-01-17

subsequently the negotiation with Wsymaa
s aos e see them ts sum they then
the that $500 Of money
s ps % rs15 the
sustained for that amount at least @
the obligation Of the s4 s Their cont
Pe Se 5 s an gy e
5 @ S e sEe we IF aB pp pp pu for
sdscon iaSt has been occasonsd action
of the principal and the sure contract cannot be al
Sanders VS.. Bagwel, 82s. G. R. $40.
The analogy between surep and letters OF creas % inns
The Whole subject is we'll illustrated by Phillip
Msy sss
ns credit bs an a
s they % s Tay
have granted # it. il es bis
sFsd wheaa sa ns
ers aPd the a eer the ps the
sraint on the responsibility of the writer.
R9Gn Mas et S B. Bae Hi ga55G% 70 JOINS r. o
From these that if Don a not the
note he could not have endorsed dealer in
see st om such other dealer Much less you'd the
power suggest Perry that he negotiate the note money
with else and then pay him cash 1o the material
Exception 1.
Appellants that Dodson was not allowed to 1
N as to his intention W in suggesting to Perry 10 discount
the note and ~ as the assignment Of the note
naHe aHe Efr osn his Intention in suggesting f. Perry
discount the note. . ,,...4.
very clearly shown not accept the note but to cash
if Perry succeeded in dscounting the note s
with the time his conversation with him as to the
of s asked m wsa
ton in references to the assignment Upon objection this qes
on ,asS held B 9
possible support contract plaintiffs were SEEING 70 20
show an understanding they sought prove parte peo
hon .o ., sou:, . rnoso to do thing
g dasns pward desg WITH
exception does not cover the point sS ws t there
error?
If the contrachad been established by proof evidence Of Rod
it sought to supply the Of proof of the contract by eV
dence Of such intention expectation oooa on oor+oin
is not eVdeRce witness should stag the
conversation in the words used or the @ OF tne
sf5r%ssd Ssnnss VI in Err s. E r. T. 5 49, ''s m ~
@sp%ds gy met By sy the N' o"f'
M Naked intent in the mind Of debtor disclosed or COM
ID % ScSed reor
1T is 9uesionabe says the Court whether naked neene UNI
accompanedby any appropriate act or
In Black vs. Columbia R. 4l2 is held I 1.-THE Wera
contract between the parties;"' ,.-.o,.,ony
Much less would "expectation' or intentlon'"
Exception III.
Appeants charge rejecting evidence OF IL
ntion and understanding accepting from B. F. fery tne po
ceeCs arising from the discount. - s,.a +bo+
At folio 70 Counsel asked Doson "But you understand nat
the money paid you by Perry was the proceeds OF S o
Of this note This question objected to and the o1ROa
sustained It does not appear from this that there was any @
to nrove Dodsons intention understanding IN receiving M
money from Perry They sought to esta6Sn ne @ h % -o
Maid to Doson the proceeds OF the dlsc0u py
no odsons understandings OF this there abundant
be rejection of this testimony if could not tne ae
preiudiced plaintiffs The rejection OF the tesmony ws
rgRt Proof of substantive fact cannot be maze ny
standing"
Exception W.
This evcepton too general for consideration Inc on
1rond undscused upon which plaintiffs could demand
a he submitted to the jury the question of ratic-
ion The mortgage of indemnity could not De
for if was taken before Perry went to Atlanta WIN 1e hoe ~
necessarily without knowledge of his wrong DONG s+
rho only other tending towards ratification Is tne
of Dr. Iamer when certain property OF Perrys was seizeu
Under execution constitute ratification the parry s9gnS ~
What his agent has done with the ratification OF When ne
is sought to be charged There is aosoutey NJ evtue
of this fact Doctor Iamer made claim througn MS
for te nropery seized months after the transactions IN A.
ntn does appear that he knew OF what Perry mao aG
hs was incumbent upon plaintiffs seeking TO establish rac
ton.
The plaintiffs proposed to the declaration of Johnson
odsons clerk that Dodson had authorized the negoaon OF
the note In other words that Dodson had before the nego
ton assigned the note to plaintiffs, and subsequently
plaintiffs interview with Johnson was not hndng oongJd
upon defendants for had not been delivered Doaso d cu
not sSion what he did not own Until right of action accrued
thereon to Dolson he had assignable interest