Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 S.C.L. 192

Richardson v. Presnall

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided May 15, 1821

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1821-05-15

JL HIS was a summary process to recover certain costs, which the plaintiffhad been subjected to under the following circumstances s The defendant had given his note to the plaintiff, who endorsed it to one Bowers,• before it became due, telling him at the time to push the note when it became due against the drawer, or he, Richardsoni would not be responsible as endorser.

Decided 1821-05-15

Mr. Justice Gantt

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The drawer of the note was certainly not bound to refund to the endorser the costs which he was subjected to pay as a consequence of his endorsement. It was a transaction of his own which the defendant could not hinder. — . As drawer of the note, the defendant was bound to pay the amount to the legal owner of it when it became due, and this was the only responsibility which could attach where no default in payment was made.

¶3The endorser who was as a new drawer to the endorsee was equally bound by law to pay, on the default of the drawer j and as he had informed the endorsee of his intention to go away, that circumstance occasioned the steps which the endorsee pursued against him. He cannot saddle the drawer with these costs. It would be equally 'against justice, as it certainly is against law, to attempt it.

¶4The court are unanimous in their opinion that the deci*194sion below was correct, and that the present motion should fail.

Bauskett, for the motion,0‘Neal^ contra.Justices Colcock, Johnson, Richardson and Huger, concurred.
/12/scl/192 · .json · Public domain