Asbill Motor Co. v. Chaplin

112 S.E. 921, 120 S.C. 211, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 103
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided July 5, 1922·No. 10936·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

*212 Action of claim and delivery for the possession of an automobile upon which the plaintiff claims to hold a chattel mortgage to secure a past-due note.

The defendant purchased an automobile from the plaintiff for $1,425, for which he paid $325 cash, delivered a used car valued at $500, and gave notes aggregating $600 for the balance. He set up as a defense to the action that at the time of the trade the plaintiff agreed that, if the particular make of car declined in price, the defendant would be allowed a credit of the amount of such decline upon said notes, that the price had declined $315, and that with that credit and certain payments made by him there was only due $35 upon the notes which he tendered.

Upon the trial the presiding Judge excluded testimony tending to establish that defense and directed a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant has appealed.

Under the case of Cline v. Farmers’ Oil Mill, 83 S. C., 204, 65 S. E., 272, the testimony was clearly obnoxious to the rule 'prohibiting parol evidence to vary the terms of a written instrument.

The judgment of this Court is that the judgment appealed from be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Asbill Motor Co. v. Chaplin, 112 S.E. 921, 120 S.C. 211, 1922 S.C. LEXIS 103 (S.C. 1922).

112 S.E. 921 (Asbill Motor Co. v. Chaplin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gilchrist v. State
612 S.E.2d 702 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2005)
State v. Shaw
441 A.2d 561 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1981)
Gainer v. State
391 A.2d 856 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1978)
Etiwan Fertilizer Co. v. Jones
24 S.E.2d 74 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1943)
Carolina Nat'l Bank v. Wilson
150 S.E. 765 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1929)
Hamilton Brown Shoe Co. v. Stanley
120 S.E. 234 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1923)
Stalnaker v. Tolbert
114 S.E. 412 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1922)
Armour Fertilizer Works v. Hyman
113 S.E. 330 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1922)