Beasley v. . Edwards

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Beasley v. . Edwards

190 S.E. 221, 211 N.C. 393, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 102

DecidedMarch 17, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 190 S.E. 221 (Beasley v. . Edwards) 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

Beasley v. . Edwards, 190 S.E. 221, 211 N.C. 393, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 102 (N.C. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Peb Curiam.

It appears from allegations in the complaint which are admitted in the answer that on or about 1 November, 1935, the defendant lawfully impounded one red sow, which was owned by the plaintiff, and held the said sow in bis possession until bis lawful fees and damages caused by the sow were paid by the plaintiff. C. S., 1850.

It was admitted at the trial that since the commencement of the action, the defendant has sold the sow, as authorized by a judgment of the recorder’s court of Jobnston County, and out of the proceeds of said sale has paid to himself bis lawful fees for impounding the said sow, and bis damages caused by the sow. Plaintiff now has the sow in bis possession, and defendant has paid to plaintiff the amount due him out of the purchase price at the sale. C. S., 1851.

There is no error in tbe judgment dismissing tbe action. It is

Affirmed.

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

Peb Curiam.

It appears from allegations in the complaint which are admitted in the answer that on or about 1 November, 1935, the defendant lawfully impounded one red sow, which was owned by the plaintiff, and held the said sow in bis possession until bis lawful fees and damages caused by the sow were paid by the plaintiff. C. S., 1850.

It was admitted at the trial that since the commencement of the action, the defendant has sold the sow, as authorized by a judgment of the recorder’s court of Jobnston County, and out of the proceeds of said sale has paid to himself bis lawful fees for impounding the said sow, and bis damages caused by the sow. Plaintiff now has the sow in bis possession, and defendant has paid to plaintiff the amount due him out of the purchase price at the sale. C. S., 1851.

There is no error in tbe judgment dismissing tbe action. It is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.E. 221, 211 N.C. 393, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beasley-v-edwards-nc-1937.