Judgment for plaintiff against defendant last named, and in favor of the first two named defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Messrs. D.W. Robinson and D.W. Robinson, Jr., for appellant, cite: Hearsay testimony: Jones on Ev. (3rd Ed.), 451; 27 S.C. 456; 52 S.C. 309; 65 S.C. 1; 103 S.C. 467; 113 S.C. 295; 118 S.C. 12. Holder in duecourse: Sec. 3703, Code; 110 S.C. 271; Failure of considerationnor fraud available as defense against holder indue course: Sec. 3679, Code; 101 S.C. 207; 32 S.C. 538; 110 S.C. 271; 133 S.E., 467; 105 S.C. 100. Takesfree of all equities: Sec. 3708, Code; 98 S.C. 220; 100 S.C. 59. Notice of infirmity: Sec. 3707, Code; 91 S.C. 455; 117 S.C. 140; 128 S.C. 67; 110 S.C. 462. Defectivetitle: Sec. 3706, Code. Cases distinguished: 133 S.E., 709; 54 S.E., 658; 111 S.E., 799. Mr. W.D. Barnett, for respondents, cites: Contract onnegotiable instrument incomplete until delivery made withpurpose of giving effect thereto: Sec. 3667, Code. "Holderin due course": Sec. 3703, Code; Id., Sec. 3706; 87 S.C. 95. Principal liable for tortious acts of agent performedwithin scope of authority: 133 S.E., 709. Knowledge offraud by holder vitiates instrument: 136 S.E., 222.
Mr. S.M. Wolfe, for appellant, cites: Alteration, if therewas one, was not for illegal or fraudulent purposes: Negotiable Instruments Act (1914), 28 Stat. 668, sec. 12, art. I. Plaintiff is holder in due course: Id., sec. 52, art. IV. Where conflict between written and printed portions of notewritten prevail: Id.,, subdiv. 4, sec. 17, art. I. Materialalteration would not avoid in hands of one who had notbeen a party to such alteration: Id., sec. 124, art. VI. Plaintiffmade out prima facie case and entitled to direction ofverdict: 101 S.C. 208; 100 S.C. 353; 91 S.C. 455; 112 S.C. 457; 100 S.E. 359; 110 S.C. 268; 96 S.E. 371; 110 S.C. 271; 96 S.E. 406. Messrs. Bonham Allen, for respondent, cite: Evidenceas to attempt by defendant to countermand order admissible: Code Proc. 1912, sec. 429; 16 S.C. 551. Notes fall withinsec.
Judgment by default against defendant named and from a judgment for plaintiff against defendant First National Company, the latter appeals. Messrs. Carlisle, Brown Carlisle and W.B. McGowan, for appellant, cite: Appellant is a bona fide holder before maturitywithout notice and defense of subsequent breach ofcontract by payee not available: 100 S.C. 59; 84 S.E., 296. Nor for want of consideration: 110 S.C. 271; 96 S.E., 406; 63 S.C. 433; 41 S.E., 523; 32 S.C. 538; 11 S.E., 379. Nor defense of fraud in the inception: 105 S.C. 100; 89 S.E., 657 S.C. 76; 68 S.E., 963. Burden of proofon party asserting claim: 141 S.C. 397; 39 S.E., 853; 103 S.C. 538; 88 S.E., 284; 91 S.C. 455; 74 S.E., 977. Transfer of promissory note as collateral security makesassignee bona fide holder: 128 S.C. 67; 122 S.E., 224; 110 S.C. 99; 96 S.E., 484; 36 S.C. 136; 15 S.E., 430. No estoppel: 151 S.C. 67; 148 S.E., 713. Messrs. Price Poag, for respondent, cite: Findings offact by Master concurred in by Circuit Judge will be sustained: 147 S.E., 874; 141 S.E., 720; 144 S.C. 3; 143 S.C. 325; 141 S.E., 564; 144 S.C. 70; 142 S.E., 36; 133 S.C. 395; 131 S.E., 18; 134 S.C. 54; 131 S.E., 319; 140 S.C. 321; 138 S.E., 815; 58 S.C. 240; 36 S.E., 586; 117 S.C. 454; 112 S.E., 330; 128 S.C. 31; 121 S.E., 674.
Mr. R. Lon Weeks, for appellant, cites: Error to excludetestimony as to want or failure of consideration inthe note in controversy: 3 Code 1922, Sec. 3710; 109 S.C. 294; 113 S.C. 140; 117 S.C. 140; 3 R.C.L., 148. Respondent not holder of note in due course: 3 R.C.L., 43-182, 260, 258, 253, 126; 2 Speers L., 344; 2 Speers L., 436. Mr. Legare Walker, for respondent, cites: Where holderhas a lien upon the instrument he is deemed holder forvalue to the extent of his lien: 3 Code 1922, Sec. 3678; 110 S.C. 99; 110 S.C. 271; 121 S.C. 437; Crawford's Ann. Neg. Inst., 113, 114. Holder in due course: 3 Code 1922 Sec. 3703. Court had discretion to regulate order inwhich testimony should be adduced: 91 S.C. 455; 105 S.C. 100; 98 S.C. 220; 100 S.C. 353; 101 S.C. 144; 101 S.C. 207; 102 S.C. 19; 103 S.C. 340; 103 S.C. 174; 104 S.C. 350; 110 S.C. 268; 115 S.C. 381; 119 S.C. 39. March 4, 1924.
Attorney General Sam'l M. Wolfe, for appellant, submits: That the change in the date of the maturity of therespective notes did not render them invalid: Negotiable Instrument Act 1914, sec. 12, article I; sec. 52, article IV; subd. 4, sec. 17; article I, sec. 124; article VI; cases cited under S.I.B., p. 55; Brannon's Negotiable Instrument Law. Plaintiff made out a prima facie case and was entitled to averdict: 101 S.C. 208; 100 S.C. 353; 91 S.C. 455. TheCourt of its own motion may not dismiss or discontinue asuit: Encyclopedia of Pleading and Practice, vol. VI, p. 961. On the whole case: 96 S.E. 406. Messrs. Bonham, Watkins Allen, for respondent, cite: As to material alterations: 3 R.C.L. 114; 23 U.S. (L. Ed.) 556; 18 U.S. (L. Ed.) 725; 35 L.R.A. 464; Rose's Notes U.S. vol. 91, 98 to 100; 100 S.C. 70; 86 Am. St. Rep. 87; 1 Nott McCord 103; Negotiable Instruments Act 125. As to burden of proof: 1 Enc. of Evid. 810 to 813 and 815 to 816; 2 Wall. 219; 14 S.C. 355; 17 S.C. 464; 1 Chev. Eq. 1; 1 Greenleaf on Evid., 16 Ed., sec. 64; 1 R.C.L. 1002 to 1005; 32 S.C. 238; 2 Daniel's on Negotiable Instruments, secs. 1417, 1418.
Where there is express or implied authority given the payee to detach notes from an order of which they originally formed a part, it has been held that such detachment does not constitute such an alteration as precludes a recovery thereon by such a holder. Harrison v. Hunter (Tex.Civ.App.) 168 S.W. 1036, 1037; Conqueror Trust Co. v. Simmon, 62 Okla. 252, 162 P. 1098, 1100; Robertson v. Commercial Security Co., 152 Ky. 336, 153 S.W. 450, 453; Shattuck v. Reed, 221 Mich. 155, 190 N.W. 649, 650; Stevens v. Khetter, 110 S.C. 271, 96 S.E. 406. Where a note, detached without authority from another instrument of which it forms a part and the terms of which affect the negotiability of such note, is in the hands of a holder in due course, it has been held that he can recover thereon upon a showing that the maker of such note was negligent in executing and delivering the same in such form that it might be easily detached and put in circulation as an unqualified and absolute obligation. Noll v. Smith, 64 Ind. 511, 31 Am.Rep. 131, 134; Brown v. Reed, 79 Pa. 370, 21 Am.Rep. 75, 77, 78; Cornell v. Nebeker, 58 Ind. 425; Jensen v. Braslafsky, 73 Pa.Super.Ct. 323; Zimmerman v. Rote, 75 Pa. 188; Woollen v. Ulrich, 64 Ind. 120; Woollen v. Whitacre, 73 Ind. 198. According, however, to the great weight of authority in this state and elsewhere, the unauthorized detachment of a promissory note, complete and negotiable in form, from a memorandum, order, or contract of which it forms a part, constitutes a material alteration when the terms o