Twitty v. Administrator of Todd

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Twitty v. Administrator of Todd

10 S.C.L. 261

DecidedNovember 15, 1818

StatusPublished

This text of 10 S.C.L. 261 (Twitty v. Administrator of Todd) 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

Twitty v. Administrator of Todd, 10 S.C.L. 261 (S.C. 1818).

Pincite

Opinions

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Cheves, J.

The only question which I deem necessary to consider, in this case, is, whether an action can be maintained on an instrument ' of this nature, against the endorser, on the ground of the insolvency of the maker.

The instrument is nothing more than an engagement to deliver, at the time therein mentioned, 100 gallons of whiskey, and the endorsement nothing more than a transfer of the interest to the endorser. It contains no express, and embraces no implied, warranty of the solvency of the maker. Since the case of Bay v. Freazer, (1 Bay, 66,) the question therein determined came before this Court in the case of Robert Walker v. Scott,¹ decided in Charleston, and it,'was then determined,* that, on an assigned, bond no action lay against the assignor, on the ground of the insolvency of the obligor. That the assignment contained no guarantee of the payment, unless that guarantee was express. This case depends upon the same principle, but it is much stronger. That was a money transaction, and bore, in that respect at least, some analogy to promissory notes for the payment of money.

I am, therefore, of opinion, that a nonsuit ought to be granted.

Colcock and Nott, JJ., concurred. Williams, for the motion. Miller and Massey, contra.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Cheves, J.

The only question which I deem necessary to consider, in this case, is, whether an action can be maintained on an instrument ' of this nature, against the endorser, on the ground of the insolvency of the maker.

The instrument is nothing more than an engagement to deliver, at the time therein mentioned, 100 gallons of whiskey, and the endorsement nothing more than a transfer of the interest to the endorser. It contains no express, and embraces no implied, warranty of the solvency of the maker. Since the case of Bay v. Freazer, (1 Bay, 66,) the question therein determined came before this Court in the case of Robert Walker v. Scott,¹ decided in Charleston, and it,'was then determined,* that, on an assigned, bond no action lay against the assignor, on the ground of the insolvency of the obligor. That the assignment contained no guarantee of the payment, unless that guarantee was express. This case depends upon the same principle, but it is much stronger. That was a money transaction, and bore, in that respect at least, some analogy to promissory notes for the payment of money.

I am, therefore, of opinion, that a nonsuit ought to be granted.

Colcock and Nott, JJ., concurred. Williams, for the motion. Miller and Massey, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 S.C.L. 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/twitty-v-administrator-of-todd-sc-1818.