McClamroch Marble & Tile Co. v. Bristow

Supreme Court of South Carolina

McClamroch Marble & Tile Co. v. Bristow

77 S.E. 923, 94 S.C. 252, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 131

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 3, 1913

Docket8506

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 77 S.E. 923 (McClamroch Marble & Tile Co. v. Bristow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McClamroch Marble & Tile Co. v. Bristow, 77 S.E. 923, 94 S.C. 252, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 131 (S.C. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Woods.

In this action on an account for goods sold, the plaintiff offered the deposition of H. C. Federal taken de bene esse. Counsel objected on the ground that the statute had not been complied with, in that there was no official seal of the notary who took the deposition on the envelope. The Circuit Judge sustained the objection and refused to allow the deposition to be opened; and the plaintiff, having no other testimony, a verdict for the defendant was directed.

The statute requires “every deposition taken under the provision of the two preceding sections shall be retained by the officer taking it until he delivers it with his own hand into' the Cou-rt for which it is taken, or shall, together with a certificate of the reasons as aforesaid of taking it and of the notice, if any, given to the adverse party, be by such officer sealed up and directed to' such Court, either by mail or express, and remain under his seal until opened in Court.” Civil Code of 1912, section 3987. It will be observed that the objection is not to the deposition itself, but to the envelope in which it is contained. On the envelope is written a statement signed by the notary to the effect that it contains *254 the deposition. On the other side and across the flap of the envelope is written “(Seal),'’ apparently in the same handwriting. Examination of the envelope makes evident the intention of the notary to' comply with the statute by placing the deposition under his seal, by making and adopting the word “Seal” in brackets as his official seal. This being so, it was not fatal that the seal was not placed by his signature. Nor was it material that he did not use a wafer or other more formal method of making his seal. Any character or symbol shown either by the paper itself or by parol evidence to be intended as a seal in compliance with the law is sufficient. Ralph v. Gist, 4 McC. 267; McKenzie v. Barnes, 12 Rich. 405; Travers v. Jennings, 39 S. C. 410, 17 S. E. 849; McLaughlin v. Braddey, 63 S. C. 433, 41 S. E. 523, 90 Am. St. Rep. 681; Rivers v. Southern Railway, 67 S. C. 419. 46 S. E. 47. The indorsements on the envelope were, at the most, merely irregular in form, and in substance complied with the law; and the Circuit Judge erred in holding otherwise.

Reversed.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Woods.

In this action on an account for goods sold, the plaintiff offered the deposition of H. C. Federal taken de bene esse. Counsel objected on the ground that the statute had not been complied with, in that there was no official seal of the notary who took the deposition on the envelope. The Circuit Judge sustained the objection and refused to allow the deposition to be opened; and the plaintiff, having no other testimony, a verdict for the defendant was directed.

The statute requires “every deposition taken under the provision of the two preceding sections shall be retained by the officer taking it until he delivers it with his own hand into' the Cou-rt for which it is taken, or shall, together with a certificate of the reasons as aforesaid of taking it and of the notice, if any, given to the adverse party, be by such officer sealed up and directed to' such Court, either by mail or express, and remain under his seal until opened in Court.” Civil Code of 1912, section 3987. It will be observed that the objection is not to the deposition itself, but to the envelope in which it is contained. On the envelope is written a statement signed by the notary to the effect that it contains *254 the deposition. On the other side and across the flap of the envelope is written “(Seal),'’ apparently in the same handwriting. Examination of the envelope makes evident the intention of the notary to' comply with the statute by placing the deposition under his seal, by making and adopting the word “Seal” in brackets as his official seal. This being so, it was not fatal that the seal was not placed by his signature. Nor was it material that he did not use a wafer or other more formal method of making his seal. Any character or symbol shown either by the paper itself or by parol evidence to be intended as a seal in compliance with the law is sufficient. Ralph v. Gist, 4 McC. 267; McKenzie v. Barnes, 12 Rich. 405; Travers v. Jennings, 39 S. C. 410, 17 S. E. 849; McLaughlin v. Braddey, 63 S. C. 433, 41 S. E. 523, 90 Am. St. Rep. 681; Rivers v. Southern Railway, 67 S. C. 419. 46 S. E. 47. The indorsements on the envelope were, at the most, merely irregular in form, and in substance complied with the law; and the Circuit Judge erred in holding otherwise.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 S.E. 923, 94 S.C. 252, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclamroch-marble-tile-co-v-bristow-sc-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack