Durham Citizens Hotel Corp. v. Drakeford

145 S.E. 921, 196 N.C. 808, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 411
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 24, 1928
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 145 S.E. 921 (Durham Citizens Hotel Corp. v. Drakeford) 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
Durham Citizens Hotel Corp. v. Drakeford, 145 S.E. 921, 196 N.C. 808, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 411 (N.C. 1928).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We find no error in the trial of the issues submitted to the jury in this ease. These issues arise upon the pleadings. There was no evidence tending to sustain the defenses relied upon by defendant. The issues tendered by defendant involving these defenses were properly refused. The court heard the evidence which defendant proposed to offer, in the absence of the jury, and correctly ruled that this evidence did not tend to support the affirmative of the issues tendered.

*809 In his answer, defendant denied that he executed the note sued on; however, in his testimony as a witness in his own behalf, he admitted that he did execute the note, and that he had made two payments thereon. There was no evidence tending to show that the citizen of Durham, who solicited defendant to subscribe for stock in plaintiff corporation, and to execute his note in payment of said stock, received any commission for the sale of the stock to plaintiff or to any one else. The organization of plaintiff corporation was a community enterprise; those who undertook the promotion of such enterprise did so because of their civic pride and public spirit. There was affirmative evidence to this effect which was not contradicted.

ITpon the facts of this case we do not think the remark of the judge, in his charge to the jury, was prejudicial to defendant. This remark was an obvious truth both as a proposition of law and as a principle of morality. Defendant’s assignment of error, based upon exceptions to this remark, cannot be sustained.

The judgment is affirmed upon the authority of Hotel Corporation v. Dennis, 195 N. C., 420, 142 S. E., 578.

No error.

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

Related

Elizabeth City Hotel Corp. v. Overman
160 S.E. 289 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
145 S.E. 921, 196 N.C. 808, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durham-citizens-hotel-corp-v-drakeford-nc-1928.