The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1894-01-17
Is, Clothing, Beets Shoes, Hats, Trunks, GFt

Mills wpm is G s ys6s
"A principal executed with her husband and two
os W he e left and
verd to her husband as her agent to purGhase NIUE em
note in the purchase horse of greater value from another
giving his obligation for the ne an 5nat b a
husband was alone liable to the holder other than
that in the note brought home to the hoder ha
the note intended for another" ,
The question of delivery decided independently OF ne re
The title Of plaintiffs to note depends the existence
the in Perry to transfer the note at the tin me @ If ne d9
the plaintiff cannot claim that they were OF TINS af
If all the gners of the note were Pey was none '
less their agent to deliver the note to DOoson only.
The sureties are Discharged.
The defendants as sure es are discharged by the improper
duct of the principal paye Their contract has been al
tered without their knowledge consent.
appes qea 'a at eo 49, Ta plaintiffs
given Perry and md Crews upon or the the 5e a
fendants are set The mortgage states that it
sn o the | w. bdo fm or the
the date of the note and this mortgage that y
executed at the same time The plaintiffs cannot contra
The mortgage taken in connection with the signing of the note
promise to indemnify them At least the two transactions must
be together evdencng the contract the o line
bleness of the that the surety is entitled to stand upon
the ade ID ens ha of ne %M o %M oet 5d
worth of printing material he ngoaes Win @ Ras nre ot
The IN nlney
He shaved it at the rate of nearly five per cent for
egSt eEss mSHss snE Sy
to the ure Of material he R Ra s PoGh Spon Of S the
Wheh Ssdl 1onssa material
500 Worth in addition that with similar
reservation of title to the whole in Dods9n Mhat @ oe
the $40 in cash which Perry retained out o the sou oDae
from the Plaintiffs it is impossible to say o, ;,.o
Doon Until $3.50 paid The purpose Of the suretes
s5diea %ns g ths 9y pGo to x so Sus sD st fS
served that these suees took every possible sn
paya5e e toX to :nf9 Dodson neoaOy
They the note the for which 1t was IS ao @
usnu ugati5us orme5a these setes must certainly
The following citations show how carefully the rights of the
surety are protected by the Courts ,. . .
creditor has no right to vary the situation % IN sc wH Which sba
increase the risk responsibility of the surety incurred o MS
3randt Surety m Sections. 95, $3.50, etc.
TrinsIey vs. Kirby II s. c. RI.
Gardner vs. Gardener % S. c. r. $50.
note for signed by surety foL e from % the
surety added the words Surety The principal maker gave the the
release old debt $1,000 informing plaintiff at & the ne IN lo
what the note was given and that ne nao no
II from that purpose Besmna sa Iu'sy v Rogers f. &c.
& Bugs gg in his M work on seP TS conact % of 2 IS to be
construed strictly; the obligation is not to be
other subject other person. or TO any pellou VI u
than expressed necessarily included in It, - :. ~
"Where given bank by person lhdeDte " ~
signed by the debtors sister the banks repesen1Dm o @ a
further loan would be made the debtor put no such o W."
made and the held merely collateral security IL
defense that the note diverted from the purpose ot Mc
was signed: and an inquiry could not be MADE as 10 Wee
the use which was made of the note was more dlVl9eos
than that stipulated would have been , -, ,p G. o3e
Second Nat. Bank vs. Dunn, lol Fi ot 20.
Neither can delivery bill note be made to stranger
where the paper taken originally ana dscouh'e ~ ~
person than the payee named III IL. o, Con o,a
Rand Com Pa 34 Sec 20 ,,1 zzo
First Nat Bank Strang Y ILL., 3o9
Allen VS.. Ayers, Pick. SS.
Bank VS.. Jones, 1G Pick oh. ,
Bank VS.. Dunn ISL Pa. St H. 22S. o
PermOyer VS.. Watson 10 JOINS. ~; iU,' NV t,, +,o
The case of Keith Goodwin 81 VT 2S Is eeo on py t
appellants There the note payable to certain 9ak WIN
the intention that be discounted by the Dank anu anu de
delivered principals The cashier OF the Dnk
and afterwards endorsed his own account Ill le o
name to third person. 49, ,.: ~, +ho bonl,
1t was held that this sufficient adoption p tT oh m
TO render the note binding on all parties to the contract me
cson is bsed pon the ground that the note intended to
be discounted money that the prlca t
intended, the sretys contract was not uecie @ @ @ o
yee was mere formal part of the note ana so upon 1 @
ground that bank actually in possession ol e it
adopted the note rs its property by the @ na Of the
note from its cndorsee The distinction between this case
and the at apparent The note was not me- ran
enable Perry to obtain money but printing material dG G
Dolson never had possession Of the note never IL
prOpert he ONLY endorsed it for the purpose or perec m
tif title TO the note which the time OF the
considered pia ucie he said, in plaintiffs Inc ' Eo
ses Maine and Ohio, and it may have addeu % S If
have analogy between tle A.