Griffith Profitt Co. v. English

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Griffith Profitt Co. v. English

150 S.E. 619, 198 N.C. 66, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 408

DecidedDecember 4, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 150 S.E. 619 (Griffith Profitt Co. v. English) 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

Griffith Profitt Co. v. English, 150 S.E. 619, 198 N.C. 66, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 408 (N.C. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:.

The record discloses that the statute of limitations was plead by the defendant. The charge of the court below was as follows: “Gentlemen of the jury, there are two issues in this case for you to answer: The first is: Is the amount set out barred by the statute of limitations ? The court charges you that if you believe all the evidence you will answer that issue No. The second issue is: What amount, if anything, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? The court charges you that if you believe all the evidence you will answer that issue $110 and interest.” The defendant excepted and assigned error.

The testimony of S. L. English was, in part: “Mr. Proffitt says I got the wagon the 3d of June (1925), but it was the 19th day of May (1925). I know I got it the 19th of May, for my record here on my book shows it, and Boy Horton credited on the 19th of May for $110. I got the wagon before I finished putting the lumber down. I finished on the 23d of May. I hauled part of the lumber with the new wagon. Walter Barnes went into the store with me when I went in to see Higgins about letting me have the wagon.”

The action was commenced on 31 May, 1928. The defendant, English, testified that he got the wagon on 19 May, 1925. According to his testimony the account for the wagon, $110, would be barred by the statute of limitations, as the suit was brought after three years. C. S., 441. There was no “meeting of the minds” between plaintiffs and defendant, hence no express contract. The plaintiffs did not authorize and refused to ratify the transaction between their clerk, Arcemus Higgins, Boy *69 Horton and defendant, therefore defendant having gotten plaintiffs wagon and kept it and used it, there was an implied contract for money had and received, and he owed what it was reasonably worth, quantum, meruit, on the day he got it. Defendant is liable from the day of his enrichment — getting the wagon — from his testimony 19 May, 1925. Cole v. Wagner, 197 N. C., 692.

This is a matter for the jury, the probative force was for them.. For the reasons given, there must be a

New trial.

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

Per Curiam:.

The record discloses that the statute of limitations was plead by the defendant. The charge of the court below was as follows: “Gentlemen of the jury, there are two issues in this case for you to answer: The first is: Is the amount set out barred by the statute of limitations ? The court charges you that if you believe all the evidence you will answer that issue No. The second issue is: What amount, if anything, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant? The court charges you that if you believe all the evidence you will answer that issue $110 and interest.” The defendant excepted and assigned error.

The testimony of S. L. English was, in part: “Mr. Proffitt says I got the wagon the 3d of June (1925), but it was the 19th day of May (1925). I know I got it the 19th of May, for my record here on my book shows it, and Boy Horton credited on the 19th of May for $110. I got the wagon before I finished putting the lumber down. I finished on the 23d of May. I hauled part of the lumber with the new wagon. Walter Barnes went into the store with me when I went in to see Higgins about letting me have the wagon.”

The action was commenced on 31 May, 1928. The defendant, English, testified that he got the wagon on 19 May, 1925. According to his testimony the account for the wagon, $110, would be barred by the statute of limitations, as the suit was brought after three years. C. S., 441. There was no “meeting of the minds” between plaintiffs and defendant, hence no express contract. The plaintiffs did not authorize and refused to ratify the transaction between their clerk, Arcemus Higgins, Boy *69 Horton and defendant, therefore defendant having gotten plaintiffs wagon and kept it and used it, there was an implied contract for money had and received, and he owed what it was reasonably worth, quantum, meruit, on the day he got it. Defendant is liable from the day of his enrichment — getting the wagon — from his testimony 19 May, 1925. Cole v. Wagner, 197 N. C., 692.

This is a matter for the jury, the probative force was for them.. For the reasons given, there must be a

New trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 S.E. 619, 198 N.C. 66, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffith-profitt-co-v-english-nc-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack