Brittain v. . Payne

24 S.E. 711, 118 N.C. 989
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 5, 1896·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Clark, J.:

Where property is tortiously taken and sold, the owner may waive the tort and maintain an action to recover the money realized from the sale by the defendant. Lumber Co. v. Brooks, 109 N. C., 698; Wall v. Williams, 91 N. C., 477. And this is clearly what the plaintiff did by his complaint in this case. Every intendment being in favor of jurisdiction, if the complaint could have been construed as being either for the tort or to recover the money received by the defendant, this being an action before the justice, the Court would construe it to be an action on the implied contract in favor of the jurisdiction. Lewis v. Railroad, 95 N. C., 179; Stokes v. Taylor, 104 N. C., 394; Fulps v. Mock, 108 N. C., 601.

Error.

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

Brittain v. . Payne, 24 S.E. 711, 118 N.C. 989 (N.C. 1896).

24 S.E. 711 (Brittain v. . Payne) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Higgs-Taft Furniture Co. v. Clark
131 S.E. 731 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1926)
Mitchem v. . Pasour
92 S.E. 322 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
White v. . Eley
58 S.E. 437 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
Parker v. Southern Express Co.
43 S.E. 603 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1903)
White v. . Boyd
32 S.E. 495 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1899)
Sams v. . Price
26 S.E. 170 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)
Dodson v. . Bush
4 N.C. 18 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1811)