The Peoples National Bank v. Barnes

Supreme Court of South Carolina

The Peoples National Bank v. Barnes

107 S.E. 918, 116 S.C. 442, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 86

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 30, 1921

Docket10661

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 107 S.E. 918 (The Peoples National Bank v. Barnes) 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

The Peoples National Bank v. Barnes, 107 S.E. 918, 116 S.C. 442, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 86 (S.C. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a directed verdict by His Honor, Judge Bowman, in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants. The ground of motion, which was granted by his Honor at the close of the testimony, was, plaintiff’s counsel—

“asks for a directed verdict, as the only question in this case is a question of payment, and the only way payment could have occurred would be to construe the deed in question as an absolute conveyance, and not as a mortgage. The testimony in this case is absolutely undisputed that between the grantor and grantee that it was nothing but security.”

This motioh was granted by his Honor for the full amount claimed. Appellants appeal and by four exceptions impute error. The exceptions are overruled. The notes were dated and due in 1912, and, it is admitted, received by plaintiff in due course of business and for value. The deed introduced in evidence was given in 1916, four years after execution and delivery of notes sued on. ■ The undisputed evidence shows that it was on additional security. Both Mr. Rhett and Mr. Moore say the deed was intended as a mortgage. Both grantor and grantee say it is a mortgage; no other inference can be drawn from the evidence but that this is true.

The exceptions are without merit and 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 entered upon a directed verdict by His Honor, Judge Bowman, in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants. The ground of motion, which was granted by his Honor at the close of the testimony, was, plaintiff’s counsel—

“asks for a directed verdict, as the only question in this case is a question of payment, and the only way payment could have occurred would be to construe the deed in question as an absolute conveyance, and not as a mortgage. The testimony in this case is absolutely undisputed that between the grantor and grantee that it was nothing but security.”

This motioh was granted by his Honor for the full amount claimed. Appellants appeal and by four exceptions impute error. The exceptions are overruled. The notes were dated and due in 1912, and, it is admitted, received by plaintiff in due course of business and for value. The deed introduced in evidence was given in 1916, four years after execution and delivery of notes sued on. ■ The undisputed evidence shows that it was on additional security. Both Mr. Rhett and Mr. Moore say the deed was intended as a mortgage. Both grantor and grantee say it is a mortgage; no other inference can be drawn from the evidence but that this is true.

The exceptions are without merit and judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 S.E. 918, 116 S.C. 442, 1921 S.C. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-peoples-national-bank-v-barnes-sc-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack