Case Name: Covington vs. Bussey
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1828-01
Citations: 4 McCord 412
Docket Number: 
Parties: Covington vs. Bussey,
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 412–413

Head Matter:
Covington vs. Bussey,
An agent authorized to settle an account, and to give a note is the name of the principal for the balance, is a competent witness to prove his agency and the tact of giving the note, where suit is brought on the note.
Assumpsit on a Promissory Note, purporting to be drarvn by Jer. H. Bussy, the defendant’s intestate and payable to plaintiff. The signature to the note was in the hand writing of John B. Barton, who was' called as a wit ness to prove the execution of the note. He stated that defendant’s intestate had purchased a tract of land of plaintiff; that contemplating a visit to Alabama, the intestate had instructed the witness to make a settlement with the plaintiff as to all their dealings, and stated to him that he would find all the necessary vouchers in the hands of Benj. Hightower to enable him to do so. That he applied to Hightower, procured the vouchers, and made the settlement; and this note was given for the balance.
He proved, also, that he was instructed to give a note for the balance that might be found due, and to accept and receive titles for the land, and that he did so, and on the return of defendant’s intestate, he reported to bim what ne had done, and that he approved of it.
Bauskett, for defendant,
objected that Barton was an incompetent -^-fitness to prove the fact of his agency.— The objection was overruled, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff, and the question was now brought before this Court.

Opinion:
Curia per
Johnson. J.
I take the general rule to be, that an agent is admitted ex necessitate to prove not only his acts as such, but also the fact of his agency.— But in any view of it, the foundation oí the objection was the supposed interest of the witness. In this particular case, the interest of the witness can not be perceived. It was a naked agency. He would not be liable on the note to the plaintiff, because there was no consideration moving him to the execution; nor to the defendant, because, if he acted without authority, the intestate was not bound by it; and how far this might effect his credit, was for the Jury of which the defendant had the full benefit. Aw trial refused.