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

Dodso of said city their certain sealed etc. Again. par
agaph III they alege Tha subsequent to the execution and de-
livery said before the maturity thereof the said W.
Dodson for value received at Atlanta Ga assigned the same to
plaintiffs Their title is thus based by their statements
upon the validity of the delivery to DosOn Upon this point
Dodson says folio He presented noe for think, $500
and asked that accept it cash in payment for his purchase
declined to do so, telling him that had quoted him the Lowest
cash price, hence could accept note no matter how good IN
lieu of CASH. suggested to him out and see II he could
discount pay cash for his goos At folio
a. to the question: Was the note ever in your posses
sion ?" he It was At folio 49, in answer to the
question: "Was that note ever delivered to you ne says
not.'
One of the plaintiffs G. w. Conno, at folio 49, says, "M
Perry wanted get the money this note saying that Mr. Do
oUouM accept the ote but he wanted the money instead
But the appellants CONTEND by suggesting to Perry that he GO
discount note and return with the cash. Dodson con-
suted Perry his agent and that this amounted to an adoption
the noe constructive delivery to Dodson That to say
what he had positively and peenty declined to
recognize.
Delivery question of intention largely and act cannot be
where the intention to the contrary manifest
If the intention to adopt this note to make 1t his own
property then have been his intention to treat itas his
own So why allow Perry to discount at runous rate
without remonstrance complaint? Or why allow Perry TO
him only $500 of the s6O received without de-
mand accounting? Dodson did not know matter OF
where the from He that he understood that
the proceeds the note but Perry his agent did not SO
much as tell him that he had negotiated the note.
To constitute delivery there must have been delivery 10 e
person intended and the purpose intended And even II
should be held that this amounted to adoption OF the note oy
Dodson certainly not delivery in return for printing sup
plies.
Suppose Dodson himself had discounted the note and
Perry printing supplies would these defendants
liable upon the note? We think not for that would amount
diversion of the purposes for which the note given
Then Dodson could not do by ne himself coud
do The only connection that Dodson the original paee ao
with the endorse it without recourse after the
ts had purchased it. He had washed his hands OF 1t at the st
Of intention
with it he endorsed it. In to the question why ne en-
dorsed it, he says at folio %: q" considered their possession
Drna facie evidence that their property ana they were
titled to have endorsed them O. In other Words was
nerf their claim of title to the in Weyman Connors
A. so understood M The appellants contend that the note
was delivered to Doson in the face of these facts lie decmeo
accept never in his possession 1t never was
him. and when he endorsed he did because ne thought
was their property. ,,.
The plaintiffs claim depending the validity OF the deVe
to Dodson they cannot escape the nonsut by arguing w
there delivery to Weyman Connors. But VARYING ioi
the sake of argument this objection have they shown delivery
to the latter?
fSat enaa e c b
to another person for different piece OF properly "hc W."
The Chief Justice says in Williams, 1e s. c. r. 600
They certainly never in person made any contract with he
plaintiff and sought to bind them by c9nact m m mage b
evidence shows only that the act beyond the
heH e gsW o the face of the note they
they knew the face of the note that was o
procuring; which they ABOUT 10
Dodson refusal to accept the note They must have known
that the agent exceeding his authority 1t clear S %
did not regard Perry the agent OF Dodson ne MAGE no u
arations suggesting such thing They say that upon
senaton that these all partners OF his we let MIN nave
the money" (Folio 36) :. 49,, .,o;,+es
The facts in this present weaker claim TOR the
than either Gourn Read Rich 497 or Mills vs. "l'
16 S. G. r. 593. . !, - 70 ss;s+ino one
In Ciourn vs. Read-Read for the purpose OF assisting one
Commander signed with him surety Joint ana
leaving the date the Of oblgee blank, WIN te
Standing that when Commander found some one 70
money On that security fill the blanks Read
hy alleging that had revoked the authority orlgny gwen
Commander fill the blanks in the bond and negouafe IT.
the money was borrowed Gourn The paln
that he could be affected by this revocation unless ne @ o
e of it, The Supreme Court held that as Gourd @ tJ ~
nended upon of Commander at the Tune ne e
blanks to do Of Read the painh took the rs VI
its revocation and whether he had notice OF tS reVo
could not affect the question. ,,.u - 1,-;r;r,S
The Chief Justice referring this in Mills vs. Mlans
"Ths stronger than the now before the
There the surety had originally invested the principal W
hory to fill the blank in the bond with the name OF y Pr
son from whom could borrow the money ana yet
bond was left possession of the principal 1t Was e @
if such authority revoked, the surety would pe
though the who loaned the money had no noce
sch authority had revoked. Here however, the person
who delivered to the plaintiff never hao y % a"y
TO do So but contrary his instructions were TO aee
to another person. particular thing peced m "e mG anu
his delivery the plaintiff wholly uauthorized ana eo
bind these defendants" ,, n,, ;,oiro1
sert avtng intended for certain person.
tain certain articles and the plaintiffs had actual ana u
from the terms OF the note DuI ro
statement of Perry as COnnerS admits