Goodrum v. Farmers Gin Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Goodrum v. Farmers Gin Co.

191 S.E. 25, 211 N.C. 737, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 202

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 28, 1937

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 191 S.E. 25 (Goodrum v. Farmers Gin Co.) 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

Goodrum v. Farmers Gin Co., 191 S.E. 25, 211 N.C. 737, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 202 (N.C. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee CtjbiaM.

Tbe only question presented by tbe appeal is tbe correctness of tbe ruling of tbe court below in denying tbe motion for judgment of nonsuit. There were no exceptions to tbe evidence or to tbe judge’s charge to tbe jury.

Tbe defendants contended that tbe evidence offered by tbe plaintiff showed that bis course of dealing witb tbe mortgagor witb respect to tbe crops covered by bis mortgage was such as to indicate that be bad consented to tbe sale of tbe crops by tbe mortgagor, and that tbe execution of a new mortgage each year released tbe mortgage on tbe crops of tbe preceding year, and ratified tbe sales to defendants. But tbe plaintiff testified: “I never gave Mr. Smith permission to sell any part of mortgaged crops. Never agreed to release either mortgage. Had a definite understanding and agreement witb Mr. Smith that each additional mortgage would be additional security witb right to toll all crops previously disposed of unless 1935 note paid in full at maturity. Had no knowledge of either defendant purchasing crops, except Smith told me be bad sold them to C. B. Barnett.”

This evidence was sufficient to take tbe case to tbe jury on tbe issues raised. Liability for tbe recovery was apportioned among tbe defendants in accord witb an agreement between them.

In tbe trial, we find

No error.

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

Pee CtjbiaM.

Tbe only question presented by tbe appeal is tbe correctness of tbe ruling of tbe court below in denying tbe motion for judgment of nonsuit. There were no exceptions to tbe evidence or to tbe judge’s charge to tbe jury.

Tbe defendants contended that tbe evidence offered by tbe plaintiff showed that bis course of dealing witb tbe mortgagor witb respect to tbe crops covered by bis mortgage was such as to indicate that be bad consented to tbe sale of tbe crops by tbe mortgagor, and that tbe execution of a new mortgage each year released tbe mortgage on tbe crops of tbe preceding year, and ratified tbe sales to defendants. But tbe plaintiff testified: “I never gave Mr. Smith permission to sell any part of mortgaged crops. Never agreed to release either mortgage. Had a definite understanding and agreement witb Mr. Smith that each additional mortgage would be additional security witb right to toll all crops previously disposed of unless 1935 note paid in full at maturity. Had no knowledge of either defendant purchasing crops, except Smith told me be bad sold them to C. B. Barnett.”

This evidence was sufficient to take tbe case to tbe jury on tbe issues raised. Liability for tbe recovery was apportioned among tbe defendants in accord witb an agreement between them.

In tbe trial, we find

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 S.E. 25, 211 N.C. 737, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodrum-v-farmers-gin-co-nc-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack