Case Name: N. Pope vs. A. H. Fort
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1841-12
Citations: 2 McMul. 60
Docket Number: 
Parties: N. Pope vs. A. H. Fort.
Judges: We concur. John Belton O’Neall, Josiah J. Evans, D. L. Wardlaw.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 60–65

Head Matter:
N. Pope vs. A. H. Fort.
Defendant undertook, in writing, to pay the amount of a note, of one Groner, to the plaintiff, when he should be in possession of funds, belonging to Groner. Held, that an action could not be supported against the defendant, upon his undertaking; it being void, for want of a consideration, to support the promise.
Before Richardson,' J. Richland, Fall Term, 1841.
The following summary of the facts, of this case, will be found (with the grounds of appeal,) sufficiently intelligible, to a proper understanding of it.
The defendant, Fort, assumed in writing, to pay the plaintiff, Pope, the amount of a note drawn by one Groner, when, in funds for the maker, (see the note.)
The question was, whether Fort had received such funds. Davis proved, that Fort was a Commissioner of public buildings; the Commissioners were indebted to Groner, for work done; and Fort, thereupon', made the written assumption.
Groner, (being first released by Pope,) then swore, .that Fort was Chairman of the board; and after the assumption to Pope, he (Fort,) paid the witness $100 for his work, by a check, upon Major Hart, which was received, but his note never was taken up, as he wanted the money to get married.
Major Hart, also, proved, that the check had been paid, &c.
Isaac Tickner said he had called on Fort for payment; who said he would pay it, as soon as he got the money for Groner.
West Caughman said Groner called for his money, and the board authorized Fort to draw $100 to pay him.
Captain Harman said Groner applied for the money, i. e. $50, to pay the witness, and $50 to get married.
The Court held Fort liable, upon this evidence, and decreed for plaintiff.
Copy of the note, referred to, and, of the defendant's promise.
“ 65,75. Three days after date, I promise to pay, to N. Pope, or bearer, sixty-five dollars, and seventy- five cts. for value received of hin, the 24th of March, 1840.
[Signed,] N. W. GRONER”
"Mr. Pope left in my hands the original, of which the above is a copy, which I am requested by the maker to pay, which I will do, whenever his funds come to my hand.
[Signed,] A. H. FORT.
Aug. 10, 1840.”
The defendant appealed and moved for a non-suit, upon the ground, that the allegata and probata, did not correspond, in this, because it was alleged in the process, that the defendant promised, unconditionally, to pay the note made by N. W. Groner, when, in fact, as appeared from the evidence, he only promised to do so, when funds, belonging to Groner, should come to his hands.
And also, to reverse the decree of his Honor, upon the following grounds:
1st. Because there was no evidence, that any funds belonging to Groner, ever came into the hands of defendant:
And 2nd. Because the defendant, in giving the order on the Treasurer, acted in his official capacity, as Chairman of the Commissioners appointed to superintend the building of the Lexington Court House, in obedience to their order, as proven by the witness, Caughman, and had no power or authority individually, to retain the order in his own hands, or to draw the money himself, the said Commissioners having made a special order, that Groner should be paid the amount of the draft.
3. Because the promise of defendant, to pay Groner’s debt, was without consideration, and therefore void.
Boozer, for motion,
said the allegata and probata did not correspond, Hilberson vs. Paysinger, 1 Bail, Rep. on 2nd ground. .He said there was no consideration to support the promise; there would be none, until funds were received, cited Riley’s, L. Cases, 56. The consideration must be proved. Powell on Cont. 343 to 356 ; 5 J. R. 6, lb. 272, 18, J. R. 145
Mr. -, contra.

Opinion:
Curia, per
Earle, J.
This action is brought against the defendant, on his alleged undertaking, to pay a debt, due to the plaintiff, from one Groner, by a note of hand. The promise relied on is in writing ; and so far complies with the statute of frauds, as we do not now require the consideration to be expressed. But there are several objections to the plaintiff's recovery; some arising out of the process, others out of the paper itself, as a legal assumpsit, to sustain an action. It is not, itself, a note of hand, importing consideration; and none is set out in the process. If we dispense with that, as I suppose we may, under the liberal (perhaps it would be more true to say, loose,) practice in that jurisdiction, yet, the promise to pay ison a contingency, "whenever his funds come to my hands." Now surely, the process should have alleged the receipt of funds, and when; with a refusal to pay. But supposing this to be cured too, does the paper itself, and the proof, authorize the decree % Regarding it as an undertaking, to pay the debt of another, some consideration is necessary ; some loss, or inconvenience to the plaintiff, or some benefit, however slight, to Groner, or the defendant; and, I confess, I do not perceive either. There is no stipulation for forbearance to Groner, much less, to discharge him, in consideration of the defendant's promise. The defendant, himself, did not owe Gro-ner, and could derive no advantage from paying his debt. The plaintiff deposited the note with defendant, although, it was payable to bearer; this was no transfer, but only to enable him, whenever Groner's funds came to hand, to apply them and deliver up the note, to Groner. On considering the terms of the paper, and the whole complexion of the case, I think it apparent, that this could only be done with Groner's consent; and that, in fact, there was no undertaking, on the part of the defendant, to pay the debt out of his own funds. Groner made no assignment of the fund to the plaintiff, so as to make it money, had and received, in the hands of defendant, to the use of the plaintiff. He requested Fort to pay the note, and Fort said to the plaintiff, I will do so, as he has requested me, when his funds come to my hands. Before that event happened, Groner changed his mind, and countermanded the order to pay the plaintiff, as it was competent for him to do. So far from assigning the fund to the plaintiff, by drawing on Fort, in his favor, there does not appear to have been any com munication on the subject, between Groner and the plaintiff. As between him and the defendant, it was competent for him to revoke, at pleasure, any order given for the payment of the money, before it was paid. If the undertaking was not such as I have supposed, and the understanding of the parties, likewise, why was not a check drawn at once, on the treasury, in favor of the plaintiff, to pay Gro-ner's note'? I think there was no legal undertaking to pay, founded on any consideration, proceeding from the plaintiff, to sustain this action. The defendant might, gratuitously, have undertaken to collect this note, for the plaintiff; if he did so, and the note was intrusted with him, for that purpose, and he entered upon the performance of the trust, he would be bound to act honestly, and would be answerable for the damages, if he were guilty of culpable negligence. The action here, .however, does not rest upon these grounds, which it will be time enough to consider, when they come before us. The motion to set aside the decree, and to enter a non-suit, is granted.
We concur. John Belton O'Neall, Josiah J. Evans, D. L. Wardlaw.
Butler dubitante, Richardson, J. dissenting.