Case Name: Levi Richardson vs. Jacob Presnall
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1821-05
Citations: 1 McCord 192
Docket Number: 
Parties: Levi Richardson vs. Jacob Presnall.
Judges: Justices Colcock, Johnson, Richardson and Huger, concurred.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 192–194

Head Matter:
Levi Richardson vs. Jacob Presnall.
The drawer of a note is not bound to refund to the endorser any costs which he may be subjected to in consequence of his endorsement, when he paid off the note as soon as it became due.
JL HIS was a summary process to recover certain costs, which the plaintiffhad been subjected to under the following circumstances s
The defendant had given his note to the plaintiff, who endorsed it to one Bowers,• before it became due, telling him at the time to push the note when it became due against the drawer, or he, Richardsoni would not be responsible as endorser.
Boxvers called on the drawer to ascertain whether punctuality in payment might be expected when the note became due. The drawer, Presnail, said he could mot tell whether he should be able *'o pay it or not, and to stop Richardson, if hé could. Richardson, the ertdorser, had sold his land, and had informed Bowers, the endorsee, that he was going away.
B 07vers, on receiving the answer he did from the drawer of the note, obtained a ne exeat against Richardson, to prevent his leaving the state; and for the costs which he was put to on account of this proceeding, the present suit was brought against the defendant, although the note had been punctually paid off by him when it became due.
The case was tried before Mr. Justice Gantt, Spring Term of 1821, for Newberry district, who, thinking that the defendant was not bound to refund those costs under existing circumstances, non-suited the plaintiff.
This was therefore a motion to set aside the non-suit, and for a new trial:
1st. Because the defendant, as maker of the note, was liable to the plaintiff for all costs which he sustained in consequence of having endorsed the note.
2nd. Because, under the particular circumstances of this case, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Gantt
delivered the opinion of the court.
The drawer of the note was certainly not bound to refund to the endorser the costs which he was subjected to pay as a consequence of his endorsement. It was a transaction of his own which the defendant could not hinder. — . As drawer of the note, the defendant was bound to pay the amount to the legal owner of it when it became due, and this was the only responsibility which could attach where no default in payment was made.
The endorser who was as a new drawer to the endorsee was equally bound by law to pay, on the default of the drawer j and as he had informed the endorsee of his intention to go away, that circumstance occasioned the steps which the endorsee pursued against him. He cannot saddle the drawer with these costs. It would be equally 'against justice, as it certainly is against law, to attempt it.
The court are unanimous in their opinion that the deci sion below was correct, and that the present motion should fail.
Bauskett, for the motion,
0'Neal^ contra.
Justices Colcock, Johnson, Richardson and Huger, concurred.