Court Opinion

ID: 9833890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:07:18.341062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:08.580514
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
In the original opinion filed in this court on the 9th day of May, 1916, we stated:
*1031“That as appellant was the owner of the notes in question long after they became due, and although he had an opportunity to do so, he had brought no suit to collect the sum due on the notes, the transferee of the same was not required to exercise that degree of diligence in fixing the liability of the indorser which he would have been required to exercise if said notes had been transferred to him before maturity, but should be required to exercise such reasonable diligence only as was_ apparently necessary, under all the facts and circumstances of the case, to protect the indorser from loss by delay in bringing suit, and that appellee did exercise such diligence”
—and in support of such statement we quoted with approval a portion of the opinion in the case of Chadwick v. Jeffers, 1 Rich. Law (S. C.) 397, 44 Am. Dec. 200. Upon further consideration, on motion for rehearing, we have concluded that such statement, and the rule quoted from Chadwick v. Jeffers, supra, is not the law of this state as' made by our statutes or by the decisions of our courts. We therefore recede from such holding.
But as we still think the judgment of the trial court was properly affirmed for the other reasons given in our opinion, the motion for rehearing is overruled.