Case Name: FURST & THOMAS v. MOORE ET AL.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1924-07-30
Citations: 129 S.C. 223
Docket Number: 11560
Parties: FURST & THOMAS v. MOORE ET AL.
Judges: Messrs. Justices Fraser, Cothran and Marion concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 129
Pages: 223–225

Head Matter:
11560
FURST & THOMAS v. MOORE ET AL.
(123 S. E., 825)
Messrs. Bonham & Allen and Jones & Harrison, for plaintiffs,
Messrs. Grier, Park & McDonald, for defendants, appellant,
July 30, 1924.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
The "case" contains the following.statement:
"This action was commenced on May 25, 1923, by the plaintiffs, in the Greenwood County Court, against Gary B. Moore as principal, and the four other defendants as guarantors, on a balance due under a contract hereinafter set out. The case came on for trial in December, 1923, and resulted in a directed verdict against the defendant, Gary B. Moore, in the sum of $1,512.49, and a verdict of the jury against the other defendants in the sum of $756.24. The plaintiffs are appealing from the refusal of his Honor to direct a verdict in their favor against all of the defendants in the sum of $1,512.49. The four guarantors are appealing from the failure of his Honor to direct a verdict in their favor, for overruling their motion for a new trial, and from certain portions of his charge."
The plaintiffs' exception is overruled, as his Honor was right in submitting the case to the jury as to the appellants. He submitted to the jury for their determination whether or not the plaintiffs shipped to Moore unreasonable orders when Moore's account was in an unsatisfactory condition, and we cannot say, under all of the facts and circumstances, that the verdict of the jury was capricious and without evidence to support it, or contrary to the law, as charged by his Honor.
As to the defendants' exceptions, we think the contract of guaranty that the appellants entered into was a continuing one. It is unlimited as to time and amount. It was the intention, as we gather from the contract entered into by the parties, that it was for an indefinite time for a future course of dealings between the parties, and we construe the contract to be a continuing guaranty. The object of the contract was to strengthen Moore's credit and enlarge his trading opportunities. The plaintiffs felt safe in extending credit to Moore by reason of the fact that they had a contract with the appellants of guaranty of Moore.
All exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.
Messrs. Justices Fraser, Cothran and Marion concur.
Mr. Chiee Justice Gary did not participate.