Consolidated Textile Corp. v. Patterson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Consolidated Textile Corp. v. Patterson

166 S.E. 900, 203 N.C. 862, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 129

DecidedDecember 21, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 166 S.E. 900 (Consolidated Textile Corp. v. Patterson) 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

Consolidated Textile Corp. v. Patterson, 166 S.E. 900, 203 N.C. 862, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 129 (N.C. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The first two exceptions were taken to the rejection of evidence and the third, fourth, and fifth to the admission of proof that the defendant had in his possession $800 or $900 in 1917 and $2,340 in August, 1930. These exceptions present no satisfactory cause for a new trial; and so as to the sixth.

Exceptions 7, 8, 9, relate to the charge on the second and third issues, but in these instructions we find no error. As stated by the court the burden of these issues was on the plaintiff and was not necessarily affected by the principle applicable to property recently stolen. That Campbell deposited the money he received from Camp and Borders in the Postal Savings Account is not a necessary or presumptive deduction from his recent receipt of it.

We find no error upon the merits without passing on the question whether the appeal should be dismissed for the reason that the appellant elected to abide by the judgment and issued execution against the person as well as against the property of the defendant, and caused him to be imprisoned. If the plaintiff received no benefit the defendant at least suffered personal detriment.

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

The first two exceptions were taken to the rejection of evidence and the third, fourth, and fifth to the admission of proof that the defendant had in his possession $800 or $900 in 1917 and $2,340 in August, 1930. These exceptions present no satisfactory cause for a new trial; and so as to the sixth.

Exceptions 7, 8, 9, relate to the charge on the second and third issues, but in these instructions we find no error. As stated by the court the burden of these issues was on the plaintiff and was not necessarily affected by the principle applicable to property recently stolen. That Campbell deposited the money he received from Camp and Borders in the Postal Savings Account is not a necessary or presumptive deduction from his recent receipt of it.

We find no error upon the merits without passing on the question whether the appeal should be dismissed for the reason that the appellant elected to abide by the judgment and issued execution against the person as well as against the property of the defendant, and caused him to be imprisoned. If the plaintiff received no benefit the defendant at least suffered personal detriment.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.E. 900, 203 N.C. 862, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/consolidated-textile-corp-v-patterson-nc-1932.