Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1919

Farmers & Merchants Nat. Bank of Lake City v. Bank of Hemingway

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided December 22, 1919 · Gary, Townsend, Williamsburg, Spring

101 S.E. 746; 113 S.C. 140; 1919 S.C. LEXIS 199 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. Kelly Hinds , for appellant, submit: It is an admitted fact that the mortgagor, without any notice of the assignment of the mortgage, turned over and delivered to the mortgagee the mortgaged property. If this case is not controlled by the Negotiable Instruments Law, then those facts operated as a satisfaction of the mortgage and plaintiff has no right to maintain this action: 27 Cyc. 1315; 56 S.C. 316 ; 28 S.C. 217 ; 26 S.C. 506 ; 110 S.C. 307 . An innocent endorsee for value in due course before maturity of a negotiable instrument, in order to preserve and protect his rights as such, is required before maturity to give the maker of the instrument notice of the endorsement or assignment, otherwise the payment to the original payee after maturity without notice of assignment will operate as a discharge of such negotiable instrument: Negotiable Instruments Law, 28 Stats. 686, subdivision 4, section 119. Messrs. Arrowsmith, Muldrow, Bridges Hicks , for respondent.

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

This case was heard upon an agreed statement of facts, which, together with the order of his Honor, the Circuit Judge, and the appellant’s exceptions, will be reported.

We desire to add but a single authority to those cited by the Circuit Judge. Bank v. City of Greenville, 97 S. C. 291, 81 S. E. 634, which decides that it is not necessary to record the assignment of a mortgage.

For the reasons stated in said order it is affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.