Case Name: Ephraim Watson against Reuben Picket
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1818-05
Citations: 2 Mill 222
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ephraim Watson against Reuben Picket.
Judges: Cokoclc, Gantt, and Johnson, J. concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 222–224

Head Matter:
Ephraim Watson against Reuben Picket.
A person hold-5ng a note oi ties whom he besoive,!tara!LÍ"t ?ta|ttatkwaseS ISdUufdbodpaw S'™ wch"í the¿ü'actcated
was an action of deceit brought against - _ _ _ „ . . . defendant, tor imposing; on the plaintiff a 1 x o r note of hand for 383 dollars, in the purchase of a horse from the plaintiff. It appeared by the evidence, that the defendant had sold his cotton Barnet & Walker, the former of whom dying, Walker had given this note as survivor of that co-partnership, and as a security for the payment of that debt. That the defendant, having reason to suspect the solvency of that firm, and being doubtful of getting his money from Walker, was desirous of making the most of his bad note, and had declared his satisfaction that he had got rid of it upon such good terms. That to induce the plaintiff to take the note for his horse, he assured him that if he would call in two or three days for payment he would get his money, and declared to plaintiff that the note was as good as gold-dust; besides which, it was proved that, when the defendant gave these assurances to the plaintiff, he, the plaintiff, was very drunk.
The defence set up, was, that the plaintiff lived as near 'Walker's as defendant did, and therefore must have known of their circumstances as well as himself; that rumours of their insolvency were pretty general before he traded away this note, and that plaintiff was speculating upon the value of the note he got in payment for his horse, since the note was for 383 dollars, and the horse was proved to be worth at most 160 dollars.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Grimke.
I am of opinion, that the misrepresentation held forth as to the solvency of Walker Co., that they would pay the note if called on in two or three days, and that it was as good as gold-dust,tended to discredit the insolvency of Walker Co., and to throw the plaintiff entirely off his guard. Besides, it did not appear by the evidence, that the report of Walker 8r Co. being insolvent was generally credited, for the only two witnesses who testified as to that point, declared themselves of directly contrary opinion: one asserting that they were insolvent at that period, and the other contending that they were not so; and neither was it proved that such rumour of insolvency had ever reached the ear of the plaintiff, only that he lived in the neighbourhood, and might have heard of it.
The conduct, then, of the plaintiff was founded on the representation of the defendant; and since the defendant, knowing, as was proved, the doubtful suspicions and insecure character of Walker &* Co., undertook to declare their solvency, there was such a manifest want of good faith in his behaviour; such a suppression of the truth of the circumstances of that Co. and such a de ceitful and false lure thrown out to entrap plain- ^ r 1 tiff, as must vitiate the contract lie induced the plaintiff to make with him.
I will observe, upon the subject of the intoxication of the plaintiff at the time that this contract was entered into, that 1 should not have considered that circumstance alone as of sufficient weight to have nullified the Contract; but that, if this case had wanted the several characters of fraud which have been detailed in it, and had rested only on the drunkenness of the plaintiff, I should have held him to his bargain; for this Court is not bound to watch over every act of folly committed by a man, nor to give him relief in such cases, which common prudence would have guarded him against, if he had not voluntarily disabled himself from using his judgment. The motion must, therefore, be discharged.
Cokoclc, Gantt, and Johnson, J. concurred.
Cheves and JVott, J. dissented.