Woodrow v. Frederick, 131 S.E. 598 (S.C. 1926). · Go Syfert
Search
Woodrow v. Frederick, 131 S.E. 598 (S.C. 1926). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Woodrow
v.
Frederick.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jan 25, 1926.
131 S.E. 598
Mr. Jas. S. Verner , for appellant, cites: Assignee of non-negotiable paper takes subject to equities: Code Civ. Pro., 1922, Sec. 355. Maker estopped to deny liability: 123 S.C. 501 ; 113 S.C. 282 ; 97 S.C. 453 ; 79 S.C. 478 ; 67 S.C. 377 ; 57 S.C. 481 ; 9 S.C. 20 ; 4 Rich. Eq., 105. Party signing paper deemed to know its contents: 126 S.C. 205 ; 124 S.C. 211 ; 123 S.C. 501 . Party seeking relief from his contract must show absence of negligence in entering into it: 115 S.C. 452 ; 110 S.C. 421 ; 108 S.C. 411 ; 108 S.C. 56 ; 101 S.C. 236 ; 9 S.C. 20 . Case distinguished: 22 S.C. 9 . Fraud in inducement to contract: 117 S.C. 391 ; 87 S.C. 331 . Knowledge of falsity of statement necessary element of fraud: 78 S.C. 482 ; 61 S.C. 190 ; 59 S.C. 399 ; 58 S.C. 59 . Prior or contemporaneous . Messrs. Melton Belser , for appellant, cite: Assignee of non-negotiable paper takes subject to equities: 22 S.C. 9 ; 1 Rich. Eq. 49; Code Civ. Pro., 1922, Sec. 355; 2 R.C., 629; 2 Jones on Mortgages, Sec. 842; 2 Pom. Eq. Juris., Sec., 704. Parol testimony to explain consideration of written contract: 26 S.C. 312 ; Jones on Evidence, Sec. 468. Maker not estopped to deny liability: 49 S.C. 496 ; 22 S.C. 9 ; 2 Pom. Eq. Juris., Sec. 711. Failure to have bond and mortgage cancelled of record does not raise estoppel: 3 Jones on Mortgages, Sec. 53. Knowledge of agent imputed to principal: 56 S.C. 373 ; 2 Pom. Eq. Juris., Sec. 637; 2 Jones on Mortgages, Sec. 53. Cases distinguished: 115 S.C. 17 ; 113 S.C. 282 ; 97 S.C. 543 ; 67 S.C. 285 ; 57 S.C. 464 ; 11 Rich. Eq., 344.
Cothran, Marion, Purdy, Watts, Ramage, Gary.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Cothran.

The decree of his Honor, Judge Townsend, is entirely satisfactory.

The judgment of this Court is that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.

Mr. Justice Marion and Mr. Acting Associate Justice R. O. Purdy concur. Mr. Justice Watts and Mr. Acting Associate Justice C. J. RamagE dissent. Mr. Chief Justice Gary did not participate.