Chicago Portrait Co. v. Furches

172 S.E. 192, 205 N.C. 539

Opinion

ReogheN, J.

Richard Miller, in the presence of his codefendant, J. G. Miller, after examining the account, signed a statement declaring that there was a balance due of $540.28. The undisputed evidence tended to show that J. G. Miller was present at the interview with the consent and approval of his codefendant, H. V. Furches. There was no allegation of fraud or mistake in the pleadings, and no evidence thereof. Thus the principle applicable was stated in Morganton v. Millner, 181 N. C., 364, 107 S. E., 209, as follows: “There is, however, another principle equally wholesome, and as fully established with us that where men wbo have bad business dealings with each other have come to a full accounting and settlement purporting to cover the transactions between them, such adjustment has the force and effect of a contract, and may not be ignored or impeached except by action in the nature of a bill in equity to surcharge or falsify the account for fraud or specified error.” See, also, Commissioners v. White, 123 N. C., 534, 31 S. E., 640; Davis v. Stephenson, 149 N. C., 113, 62 S. E., 900; Richardson v. Satterwhite, 203 N. C., 113, 164 S. E., 825.

The defendants make the point that certain sums of money due Eichard Miller were allowed as credit on an old account without their knowledge or consent. However, this money belonged to Eichard Miller, and he, of course, had a right to dispose of it as he pleased.

Affirmed.