Foster v. Tolleson

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Foster v. Tolleson

47 S.C.L. 31

DecidedMay 15, 1860

StatusPublished

This text of 47 S.C.L. 31 (Foster v. Tolleson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Foster v. Tolleson, 47 S.C.L. 31 (S.C. Ct. App. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

O’Neall, O. J.

This action was on the following guarantee: “ I assign the within note to Poster & Judd, and guarantee the payment thereof for value received, February 23d, 1857, J. B. Tolleson,” written on a single bill or note under seal then past due for three hundred and twenty-five dollars, signed by P. M. Wallace. The question presented in the first ground is, whether the defendant was entitled to notice of non-payment. It is clear he was not. The guarantee was absolute and unconditional, on a sealed note, which is unnegotiable, and was after it was due. This very question was made and decided, that the guarantor of a bond (which in all respects is like a single bill except that it has a penalty) was not entitled to notice of non-payment. The Bank vs. Hammond, 1 Rich. 285. So, too, that case decides the second [34]*34ground against defendant; for it rules, that the guarantor would not be discharged from his liability on. the supposed laches of the obligee, if there was no extension of time to the obligor, which bound the obligee, as by a valid contract. There was nothing proved in this case which could avail the defendant on the other grounds.

, The motion for a new trial is dismissed.

Wardlaw, J., concurred.

Motion dismissed.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

O’Neall, O. J.

This action was on the following guarantee: “ I assign the within note to Poster & Judd, and guarantee the payment thereof for value received, February 23d, 1857, J. B. Tolleson,” written on a single bill or note under seal then past due for three hundred and twenty-five dollars, signed by P. M. Wallace. The question presented in the first ground is, whether the defendant was entitled to notice of non-payment. It is clear he was not. The guarantee was absolute and unconditional, on a sealed note, which is unnegotiable, and was after it was due. This very question was made and decided, that the guarantor of a bond (which in all respects is like a single bill except that it has a penalty) was not entitled to notice of non-payment. The Bank vs. Hammond, 1 Rich. 285. So, too, that case decides the second [34]*34ground against defendant; for it rules, that the guarantor would not be discharged from his liability on. the supposed laches of the obligee, if there was no extension of time to the obligor, which bound the obligee, as by a valid contract. There was nothing proved in this case which could avail the defendant on the other grounds.

, The motion for a new trial is dismissed.

Wardlaw, J., concurred.

Motion dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 S.C.L. 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foster-v-tolleson-scctapp-1860.