Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

RICE v. MEDLIN ET AL.

June 30, 1921. 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 undertaking 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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

RICE v. MEDLIN et al
(Jun 30, 1921)