Jordan v. . Tarkington

15 N.C. 357
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided December 5, 1833·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Dawiei, Judge.

The request made by the defendant, that the order which he had promised to pay, might he charged against him, as an item in his account standing on the books oí the .plaintiff-, and the entry having been made accordingly, was a promise made to the agent, which enured to the plaintiff, (1 Chitty’s Pleadings 5.) The acceptance of the order was an admission j t 1 by the defendant, that lie had funds in his hands belonging to the drawer. The jury have found that the defendant knew that the payee was the agent of the plaintiff. The consideration therefore, which supports the direct promise made by the defendant to the plaintiff, is the extinguishment of his debt to the drawer, and the relinquishment by the plaintiff, and the payee his agent, of the demand on the bill and acceptance. We think the judgment should be affirmed.

Per Curiam. — Jurgmext afeirmeb.

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

Jordan v. . Tarkington, 15 N.C. 357 (N.C. 1833).

15 N.C. 357 (Jordan v. . Tarkington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kane Plaza Associates v. Chadwick
486 S.E.2d 465 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1997)