Itterly v. . Hill

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Itterly v. . Hill

2 S.E.2d 862, 215 N.C. 797, 1939 N.C. LEXIS 382

DecidedMay 31, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 2 S.E.2d 862 (Itterly v. . Hill) 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

Itterly v. . Hill, 2 S.E.2d 862, 215 N.C. 797, 1939 N.C. LEXIS 382 (N.C. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

*798 Per Curiam.

Tbe assignment of error principally relied upon by the appellant is to the charge to the effect that if the jury should answer the issue as to the indebtedness of the defendant to the plaintiff in any amount, they would answer the issue as to the indebtedness of the plaintiff to the defendant “Nothing,” since, if the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not be indebted to the defendant. We see no error in this charge. The defendant admitted the receipt of the money from the plaintiff and execution of the notes for the same, and alleged payment and overpayment thereof by the delivery of merchandise and cash. Before the plaintiff, under these circumstances, could become indebted to the defendant it was necessary for the defendant to establish by the greater weight of the evidence that the notes (representing money received by him from plaintiff) had been paid before the plaintiff could be indebted to the defendant in any amount.

We have considered the other assignments of error and find them without merit.

No error.

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

*798 Per Curiam.

Tbe assignment of error principally relied upon by the appellant is to the charge to the effect that if the jury should answer the issue as to the indebtedness of the defendant to the plaintiff in any amount, they would answer the issue as to the indebtedness of the plaintiff to the defendant “Nothing,” since, if the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not be indebted to the defendant. We see no error in this charge. The defendant admitted the receipt of the money from the plaintiff and execution of the notes for the same, and alleged payment and overpayment thereof by the delivery of merchandise and cash. Before the plaintiff, under these circumstances, could become indebted to the defendant it was necessary for the defendant to establish by the greater weight of the evidence that the notes (representing money received by him from plaintiff) had been paid before the plaintiff could be indebted to the defendant in any amount.

We have considered the other assignments of error and find them without merit.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 S.E.2d 862, 215 N.C. 797, 1939 N.C. LEXIS 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/itterly-v-hill-nc-1939.