Garris v. . Young

139 S.E. 448, 194 N.C. 340, 1927 N.C. LEXIS 92
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 5, 1927
StatusPublished

This text of 139 S.E. 448 (Garris v. . Young) 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
Garris v. . Young, 139 S.E. 448, 194 N.C. 340, 1927 N.C. LEXIS 92 (N.C. 1927).

Opinion

Per CuriaM.

The substantial allegations of the complaint are that on 1 November, 1924, the plaintiff was employed by J. K. Young, manager of the Young Mercantile Company, to advertise the company in the town of Greenville, and while so engaged he was arrested for violating an ordinance of the town. The manager then requested him to appear before the proper court and, if convicted, to appeal to the Superior Court in term. In the mayor’s court he was convicted and appealed, the defendant Young signing his appearance bond as surety. Thereafter the plaintiff inquired of Young as to the disposition of the case, and was told that the cost had been paid and that the plaintiff had been discharged, and was not required to attend the court. He alleged that he did not attend and that his absence was the result of Young’s failure to pay the cost; that he was arrested under an order of the Superior Court on account of delinquent costs and imprisoned all night and a part of the nest day, and then brought into court and held in *341 custody, and tbat in consequence of tbe wrongful acts of tbe defendants be bad been damaged in tbe sum of $5,000. Tbe defendants demurred ore tenus; tbe demurrer was sustained, tbe action dismissed, and tbe plaintiff appealed.

Tbe plaintiff knew tbat be bad given a bond for bis appearance in tbe Superior Court, and be is presumed to bave known tbat in case of default be would be subject to arrest under a capias. It bas been said, “Wben a man bas a ease in court tbe best thing be can do is to attend to it; if be neglects to do so be cannot complain.” Pepper v. Clegg, 132 N. C., 312. Tbe plaintiff should bave observed this injunction and not relied upon tbe statement of Young under tbe circumstances alleged in tbe complaint. We bave discovered no sufficient ground upon which to base a recovery.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Pepper v. Clegg.
43 S.E. 906 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
139 S.E. 448, 194 N.C. 340, 1927 N.C. LEXIS 92, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garris-v-young-nc-1927.