Mehaffy v. . Spears

Superior Court of North Carolina

Mehaffy v. . Spears

2 N.C. 142

DecidedMarch 5, 1795

StatusPublished

This text of 2 N.C. 142 (Mehaffy v. . Spears) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior 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

Mehaffy v. . Spears, 2 N.C. 142 (N.C. Ct. App. 1795).

Pincite

Opinion

NOTE BY REPORTER. — Notwithstanding the circumstance of the defendant having killed part of the cattle, and disposed of others of them, it seemed to be agreed by the attorneys on both sides, and indeed to be admitted by all the bar, and by Judge MACAY, that if this issue should be found against the plaintiff, he would thereby be utterly barred of his recovery upon the covenant. This seems to be amongst the (143) apices stricti juris that are not very conformable to the common ideas of justice. Shall the defendant be allowed to retain the value received for the cattle, by killing and disposing of them, and be discharged at the same time, by his tender, from a debt of the same value due to the plaintiff? Shall he be discharged of his debt when it is apparent the refusal on the part of the plaintiff has not been attended with any loss to himself? *Page 103

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

NOTE BY REPORTER. — Notwithstanding the circumstance of the defendant having killed part of the cattle, and disposed of others of them, it seemed to be agreed by the attorneys on both sides, and indeed to be admitted by all the bar, and by Judge MACAY, that if this issue should be found against the plaintiff, he would thereby be utterly barred of his recovery upon the covenant. This seems to be amongst the (143) apices stricti juris that are not very conformable to the common ideas of justice. Shall the defendant be allowed to retain the value received for the cattle, by killing and disposing of them, and be discharged at the same time, by his tender, from a debt of the same value due to the plaintiff? Shall he be discharged of his debt when it is apparent the refusal on the part of the plaintiff has not been attended with any loss to himself? *Page 103

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.C. 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mehaffy-v-spears-ncsuperct-1795.