Barnett v. . Smith

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Barnett v. . Smith

88 S.E. 770, 171 N.C. 535, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 120

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 10, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 S.E. 770 (Barnett v. . Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barnett v. . Smith, 88 S.E. 770, 171 N.C. 535, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 120 (N.C. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Allen, J:

There are some portions of tbe evidence of tbe plaintiff which support tbe contention of defendant tbat Wooddle and Costner paid a part of tbe money on tbe purchase price of tbe land, and tbat tbe plaintiff cannot recover tbat part; but there is also positive and direct evidence tbat tbe payments made by Wooddle and Costner were to tbe plaintiff, and tbat tbe plaintiff was tbe only debtor as between bim and *537 tbe defendant, and that all payments made to the defendant were by the plaintiff. There is also evidence that the defendant promised the plaintiff to repay all amounts paid by him in consideration of the execution of the deed to Blackwood.

The plaintiff testified: “I had paid the defendant Smith all of the $100 except $2, and the agreement was that he was to return the $98.”

There being, therefore, evidence- sustaining the plaintiff’s cause of action, the motion for judgment of nonsuit could not be sustained because of contradictory statements of the witness. Poe v. Tel. Co., 160 N. C., 316.

The issue tendered by the defendant was properly refused, no counterclaim having been pleaded, and there is no evidence to sustain the plea.

The claim of the defendant that he is entitled to recover the interest on the notes executed by the plaintiff up to the time of the conveyance to Blackwood has been repudiated by the jury, as the verdict, considered in connection with the evidence, necessarily means that the original contract was rescinded by mutual agreement upon the terms that the plaintiff was to execute a deed to Blackwood and the defendant to return the money paid to him.

It is also in evidence that the defendant received the rents from the land in lieu of interest.

The answer of the defendant to the impeaching question asked him on cross-examination could not have had an appreciable influence on the verdict, and if erroneous to admit it, it would be harmless.

No error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Allen, J:

There are some portions of tbe evidence of tbe plaintiff which support tbe contention of defendant tbat Wooddle and Costner paid a part of tbe money on tbe purchase price of tbe land, and tbat tbe plaintiff cannot recover tbat part; but there is also positive and direct evidence tbat tbe payments made by Wooddle and Costner were to tbe plaintiff, and tbat tbe plaintiff was tbe only debtor as between bim and *537 tbe defendant, and that all payments made to the defendant were by the plaintiff. There is also evidence that the defendant promised the plaintiff to repay all amounts paid by him in consideration of the execution of the deed to Blackwood.

The plaintiff testified: “I had paid the defendant Smith all of the $100 except $2, and the agreement was that he was to return the $98.”

There being, therefore, evidence- sustaining the plaintiff’s cause of action, the motion for judgment of nonsuit could not be sustained because of contradictory statements of the witness. Poe v. Tel. Co., 160 N. C., 316.

The issue tendered by the defendant was properly refused, no counterclaim having been pleaded, and there is no evidence to sustain the plea.

The claim of the defendant that he is entitled to recover the interest on the notes executed by the plaintiff up to the time of the conveyance to Blackwood has been repudiated by the jury, as the verdict, considered in connection with the evidence, necessarily means that the original contract was rescinded by mutual agreement upon the terms that the plaintiff was to execute a deed to Blackwood and the defendant to return the money paid to him.

It is also in evidence that the defendant received the rents from the land in lieu of interest.

The answer of the defendant to the impeaching question asked him on cross-examination could not have had an appreciable influence on the verdict, and if erroneous to admit it, it would be harmless.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 770, 171 N.C. 535, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnett-v-smith-nc-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack