Drewry-Hughes Co. v. B. & S. McDougald

67 S.E. 1131, 152 N.C. 759, 1910 N.C. LEXIS 369

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause was before this Court at Fall Term, 1907 (145 N. C., 286). We have examined the record and are of opinion that there was ample evidence to go to the jury that defendant Monroe had given Dun & Co. due notice that he had dissolved or failed to perfect his connection with the McDou-galds. The plaintiff had not at that time become a creditor of the McDougalds, and therefore no direct notice to it or its agents could be given.

That is really the only point in this case. We think the exceptions to the evidence are untenable and that the court fairly ’ and correctly placed the matter before the jury.

No error.