Case Name: Bank of the State of South Carolina vs. Walter Herbert
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1827-01
Citations: 4 McCord 89
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bank of the State of South Carolina vs. Walter Herbert.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 15
Pages: 89–91

Head Matter:
Bank of the State of South Carolina vs. Walter Herbert.
O. and T. as drawers, and defendant as indorser gave G. a power of attorney to make the renewals of a pote they had discounted at bank. On a .suit by the bank against the defendant, as the indorser on a renewal made by G. .the bank must show that the note sued on is the renewal of some original note drawn by these parties.
A power to renew a note at 60 or 90 days, will authorise the renewal of the note at 88 days, there being no violation of the object and intention of the parties.
Assumpsit on anote drawn by Samuel Green as attorney for John O’Neall, and Thomas S. Barrett, at eighty eight days, for $¡200, and endorsed by Sami. Green, as attorney for Walter Herbert. The questions were, Whether a power of attorney to Dr. Green to renew a note which these parties had discounted at the bank, with O’Neall and Thomas as drawers a^id Herbert endorser, £t at sixty and ninety days,” authorised his renewing thenote at eighty éight days? And
Whether the bank was not bound to show that the note sued on, was a renewal of the note which O’Neall, Thomas and the defendant had in the bank, at the time Green was authorised to renew?
The power of attorney was dated in September 1818, and the note sued on dated the 14th Nov. 1823, and protested on the 13th Feb. 1824.
O’Neall and Johnston for the appeal.
Jeter, Sol. contra.

Opinion:
Cuma, per
Johnson, J.
The power of attorney to Green did not authorise him to draw and indorse an original note in the names of the parties, but to draw and indorse renewals of.a note which had been discounted at the bank. They are not bound by the acts of their attorney further than as he acted within the power granted. It was, therefore, incumbent on the plaintiff to have shown that the note sued on was a renewal of some original note drawn by them. The plaintiffs might have been misled by the opinion of the court, that this evidence was not necessary, and for that reason the court will order a new trial, instead of granting the motion for a non-suit, when the facts may be proved, if they exist.
The other ground presents the question whether the power granted to Green by the defendant to renew notes payable " at sixty or ninety days'' included the power to endorse a note at eighty eight days?
In the construction of powers as well as all other instruments the object and intention of the pai'ties to be collected from the terms used, taken in connexion with the subject to which they relate, must always prevail; and if we look to the only object which the parties to this power could have had in view in imposing this limitation on the powers of their agent, it is scarcely possible to misconceive their intention.
The limitation to sixty days, as the shortest period, could have had for its object nothing else than to protect the drawer from a sudden and unexpected demand at the caprice of his attorney. And so the limitation of ninety days could have been intended only to guard the indorsers against the consequences of an extended credit and the possible insolvency of the drawer. Any day between these periods affords a sufficient security against all the dangers intended to be guarded against, and is therefore within the intention and meaning of the parties, and the authority to Green authorised his drawing the note in question. The motion cannot therefore prevail on this ground, but a new trial is ordered on the first.
New trial granted.