Court Opinion

ID: 9868253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:27:03.51884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:48.825802
License: Public Domain

The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts
*219The “Case” contains the following statement:
“This is an action on a promissory note commenced in the Circuit Court of Common Pleas for Marlboro County by service of summons and complaint on the defendant on the-day of-, 192 — . The defendant answered, interposing the defense of fraud and counterclaim for $!,- 000.00, alleged to have been fraudulently obtained from defendant. To the counterclaim plaintiff filed a general denial. The case came on to be heard before his Honor, R. W. Memminger, and a jury at the regular spring term of 1924 of the Court of Common Pleas for Marlboro County.
“Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this case are: The defendant agreed to purchase a certain number of shares of the capital stock of a corporation as the Talking Book Corporation, and in consideration therefor paid the sum of $1,000.00, and in addition executed and indorsed the note in question as part purchase price for said stock. The plaintiff claims the note was subsequently and before its maturity indorsed by the Talking Book Corporation and delivered to the plaintiff for value. The testimony of plaintiff’s witnesses was taken by deposition, and was read to the jury without any objection from the defendant’s counsel. The defendant then testified over the objection of plaintiff’s attorneys. The plaintiff was overruled by the trial Judge in its motion for a verdict by direction. The jury rendered a verdict for the defendant.”
Plaintiff appeals, and by exceptions, six in number, challenges the correctness of his Honor’s ruling and charge to the jury.
His Honor, the late lamented Judge Memminger, by his charge to the jury declared the law so ably and clearly that the jury could not be in doubt as to what the issues were and the law of the case. It is as clear a statement of the issues and the law applicable thereto as any case ever tried.
We think there was enough evidence to be submitted to the jury whether the plaintiff was an innocent purchaser *220for value before maturity, or whether it acquired title after maturity or with knowledge of defect. His Horior was not in error in submitting the question to the jury whether the plaintiff did not know at the time it acquired the note that there had been a failure of consideration because it represented worthless capital stock, and it was for the jury to^ determine from the indorsements on the note the date and order thereof, whether the plaintiff acquired the note subsequently to its maturity, and that under the proof a future sale of stock was made out, and this made the note void, unless and until the plaintiff assumed the burden of proving the prerequisites to recovery laid down in the statute.
We are satisfied with the ruling of his Honor and his clear and comprehensive charge, and see no error.
All exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.
Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Messrs. Justices Cothran, BlEase and Stabler concur.