Rice v. Medlin

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Rice v. Medlin

107 S.E. 911, 116 S.C. 213, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 78

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 30, 1921

Docket10633

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 107 S.E. 911 (Rice v. Medlin) 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

Rice v. Medlin, 107 S.E. 911, 116 S.C. 213, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 78 (S.C. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendants, rendered in the Magistrate’s Court, and affirmed by the Circuit Court.

The defendants offered no testimony, but relied throughout entirely on the statute of frauds, and contended that the guaranty of W. I. Rice was a collateral one, and came within the statute of frauds. The exceptions involve these questions. The exceptions are overruled. W. I. Rice, under the evidence, made an original undertalcing to pay plaintiff, not a collateral undertaking, not a guaranty to pay the debt of another. The proof and circumstances show that he was the original obligor and affected in a pecuniary way. He does not testify at all, and makes no denial of the evidence. Plaintiff had the right to charge the account to him; the evidence shows it was his account. The contention of the appellant is conclusively settled against him in the opinion of Mr. Justice Gary (now Chief Justice) in Lorick & Lowrance v. Caldwell, 85 S. C., 94, 67 S. E., 143, and authorities therein quoted.

Judgment affirmed.

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 Watts.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff against defendants, rendered in the Magistrate’s Court, and affirmed by the Circuit Court.

The defendants offered no testimony, but relied throughout entirely on the statute of frauds, and contended that the guaranty of W. I. Rice was a collateral one, and came within the statute of frauds. The exceptions involve these questions. The exceptions are overruled. W. I. Rice, under the evidence, made an original undertalcing to pay plaintiff, not a collateral undertaking, not a guaranty to pay the debt of another. The proof and circumstances show that he was the original obligor and affected in a pecuniary way. He does not testify at all, and makes no denial of the evidence. Plaintiff had the right to charge the account to him; the evidence shows it was his account. The contention of the appellant is conclusively settled against him in the opinion of Mr. Justice Gary (now Chief Justice) in Lorick & Lowrance v. Caldwell, 85 S. C., 94, 67 S. E., 143, and authorities therein quoted.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 S.E. 911, 116 S.C. 213, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-medlin-sc-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack