Gregory, Galloway Co. v. . Herring

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Gregory, Galloway Co. v. . Herring

73 N.C. 518

DecidedJune 5, 1875

StatusPublished

This text of 73 N.C. 518 (Gregory, Galloway Co. v. . Herring) 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

Gregory, Galloway Co. v. . Herring, 73 N.C. 518 (N.C. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

Settle, J.

This action was brought to recover the price of a horse sold by the plaintiffs to a son of the defendant. The plaintiffs introduced several witnesses who testified to the many facts set forth in the record, and the defendant demurred to the evidence.

We are, therefore, called upon to decide whether or not there was any evidence which tended to prove that the defendant authorized his son to purchase the horse, or that he afterwards ratified the same.

Several witnesses proved that the son lived with the father, but no one testified positively that the son was under twenty-one years of age. The only allusion to his age is made by Gralloway, one of the plaintiffs, who says he did not know that the son was under twenty-one years of age and did not know that he was acting as his father’s agent; that he charged the price of the horse to the son, who was to pay it in cotton in two weeks. Eor aught that appears upon the record, the son was of full age. Rut assuming that he was not; there is nothing in the evidence which connects the defendant with the transaction in the remotest degree, either before or after the sale of the horse to the son.

We will not repeat the evidence, as it will be set forth in full by the reporter. The strongest circumstance proven against the defendant was that he was seen, on one occasion, riding with his son while driving the horse, but surely that cannot be construed into a ratification of the purchase.

If fathers are to be held responsible for the acts of their sons who pass for adults, on such evidence as is here presented, they will have but little protection against the whims of young America and the chicanery of old speculators. “ Whether there be any evidence is for the Judge; whether sufficient evidence is for the jury.”

We are of opinion that there was no evidence in this case, *521 not even a scintilla, which tended to establish the responsibility of the defendant. The authorities on thjs subject have been recently collected and discussed in the opinion of this Court, and the dissenting opinion of Justice ByNum in the case of Witkowsky & Rintels v. Wasson, 71 N. C. Rep., 459. A further discussion of it is unnecessary.

Let the judgment of the Superior Court be reversed and judgment entered here for the defendant.

Per Curiam.

Judgment reversed.

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

Settle, J.

This action was brought to recover the price of a horse sold by the plaintiffs to a son of the defendant. The plaintiffs introduced several witnesses who testified to the many facts set forth in the record, and the defendant demurred to the evidence.

We are, therefore, called upon to decide whether or not there was any evidence which tended to prove that the defendant authorized his son to purchase the horse, or that he afterwards ratified the same.

Several witnesses proved that the son lived with the father, but no one testified positively that the son was under twenty-one years of age. The only allusion to his age is made by Gralloway, one of the plaintiffs, who says he did not know that the son was under twenty-one years of age and did not know that he was acting as his father’s agent; that he charged the price of the horse to the son, who was to pay it in cotton in two weeks. Eor aught that appears upon the record, the son was of full age. Rut assuming that he was not; there is nothing in the evidence which connects the defendant with the transaction in the remotest degree, either before or after the sale of the horse to the son.

We will not repeat the evidence, as it will be set forth in full by the reporter. The strongest circumstance proven against the defendant was that he was seen, on one occasion, riding with his son while driving the horse, but surely that cannot be construed into a ratification of the purchase.

If fathers are to be held responsible for the acts of their sons who pass for adults, on such evidence as is here presented, they will have but little protection against the whims of young America and the chicanery of old speculators. “ Whether there be any evidence is for the Judge; whether sufficient evidence is for the jury.”

We are of opinion that there was no evidence in this case, *521 not even a scintilla, which tended to establish the responsibility of the defendant. The authorities on thjs subject have been recently collected and discussed in the opinion of this Court, and the dissenting opinion of Justice ByNum in the case of Witkowsky & Rintels v. Wasson, 71 N. C. Rep., 459. A further discussion of it is unnecessary.

Let the judgment of the Superior Court be reversed and judgment entered here for the defendant.

Per Curiam.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 N.C. 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gregory-galloway-co-v-herring-nc-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack