Cartwright v. . Kerman

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Cartwright v. . Kerman

10 S.E. 870, 105 N.C. 1

DecidedFebruary 5, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 10 S.E. 870 (Cartwright v. . Kerman) 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

Cartwright v. . Kerman, 10 S.E. 870, 105 N.C. 1 (N.C. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, J.

after stating the facts: The defendant, who is alone sued, and who, by his admission, is the principal obligor, stated to the witness in 1881 or 1882, “that neither he nor Jordan (the surety) had paid the note,” and at the trial of this case before the Justice of the Peace he stated that he had made such admission to the witness, and that “the note had not been paid since.” The Court properly told the jury that, if they believed the evidence, the presumption of payment had been rebutted.

This case differs from Rogers v. Clements, 92 N. C., 81, and 98 N. C., 180, in that here it is not the admission of one of two co-obligors that he has not paid the debt, which was held in that case not competent against the other, who was not present when such admission was made. In the present case, the principal obligor and sole defendant admits that neither he nor the surety has paid the note. Such admission is good against the party making it. Rev. Code, cb. 65, § 22. It would not be evidence against the surety, but he is not sued, and the judgment herein cannot be given in evidence against him, for the defendant, being the principal obligor, cannot call upon him for contribution.

Affirmed.

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

Clark, J.

after stating the facts: The defendant, who is alone sued, and who, by his admission, is the principal obligor, stated to the witness in 1881 or 1882, “that neither he nor Jordan (the surety) had paid the note,” and at the trial of this case before the Justice of the Peace he stated that he had made such admission to the witness, and that “the note had not been paid since.” The Court properly told the jury that, if they believed the evidence, the presumption of payment had been rebutted.

This case differs from Rogers v. Clements, 92 N. C., 81, and 98 N. C., 180, in that here it is not the admission of one of two co-obligors that he has not paid the debt, which was held in that case not competent against the other, who was not present when such admission was made. In the present case, the principal obligor and sole defendant admits that neither he nor the surety has paid the note. Such admission is good against the party making it. Rev. Code, cb. 65, § 22. It would not be evidence against the surety, but he is not sued, and the judgment herein cannot be given in evidence against him, for the defendant, being the principal obligor, cannot call upon him for contribution.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 S.E. 870, 105 N.C. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cartwright-v-kerman-nc-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack