Merritt Milling Co. v. Finlay

15 S.E. 4, 110 N.C. 411
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 5, 1892
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 15 S.E. 4 (Merritt Milling Co. v. Finlay) 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
Merritt Milling Co. v. Finlay, 15 S.E. 4, 110 N.C. 411 (N.C. 1892).

Opinion

Clark, J.:

It is not necessary that we consider whether there was any evidence sufficient to go to the jury to support defendants’ counter-claim, for we concur with his Honor that the slander charged as the basis thereof was not a counter-claim that could be pleaded to this action.

The plaintiff complains that the defendants being indebted to it, accepted a draft drawn on them by the plaintiff and have failed to pay it. The defendants allege that the plaintiff slandered them as to their pecuniary standing, and injured their credit and business, and,seek damages therefor by way of counter-claim. This did not arise out of contract,-and therefore could not be pleaded under sub-section 2 of section 244 of The Code; nor could it be pleaded under the first sub-section thereof, because it did not “arise out of the contract or transaction which was the ground of the plaintiff’s claim,” nor was it “ connected with the subject of the action”— the contract made by the acceptance of plaintiff’s draft. Byerly v. Humphrey, 95 N. C., 151.

The record states that, upon the intimation of the Court, “ the defendants submitted to a non-suit upon their counterclaim, excepted and appealed.” The appeal was premature, and would not lie till after a final judgment upon the plaintiff’s cause of action. Walker v. Scott, 106 N. C., 56; Cameron v. Bennett, ante, 277.

It also did not lie because an appeal only lies from a judgment, and no judgment of any kind appears in the record. Taylor v. Bostic, 93 N. C , 415 ; Cameron v. Bennett, supra; State v. Hazell, 95 N. C., 623. This was probably an inadvertence, as the defendants admitted the acceptance was due when sued on and had not been paid, and relied solely upon the counter-claim 'by way of defence. We have, therefore, *413 passed upon the point intended to be presented, as has been sometimes, though rarety, done by the Court upon sufficient cause to justify it. McBryde v. Patterson, 78 N. C., 412; State v. Lockyear, 95 N C., 638; State v. Divine, 98 N. C., 778; Guilford County v. Georgia Company, 109 N. C., 310.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

Hancammon v. . Carr
47 S.E.2d 614 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Washington v. Safe Bus, Inc.
15 S.E.2d 372 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
Knight v. . Little
9 S.E.2d 377 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Coastal Produce Ass'n v. Wilson
8 S.E.2d 505 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1940)
Weiner v. Equel's Style Shop, Inc.
188 S.E. 331 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Columbia Nat. Bank v. Rizer
149 S.E. 316 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1929)
Town of Newton v. State Highway Commission
139 S.E. 613 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1927)
State Ex Rel. Corporation Commission v. Cannon Manufacturing Co.
116 S.E. 178 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
In Re Sermon's Land
108 S.E. 497 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)
In re Sale of Sermon's Land
182 N.C. 122 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)
Gordan v. . Gas Co.
100 S.E. 878 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1919)
Gorgon v. Pintsch Gas Co.
178 N.C. 435 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1919)
Chambers v. . R. R.
90 S.E. 590 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)
Chambers v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
172 N.C. 555 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)
Gilbert v. Waccamaw Shingle Co.
83 S.E. 337 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)
Dowdy v. . Dowdy
70 S.E. 917 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1911)
Richardson v. Southern Express Co.
65 S.E. 616 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)
Ayers v. Makely.
42 S.E. 454 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1902)
Commissioners of Beaufort County v. Old Dominion Steamship Co.
39 S.E. 18 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1901)
Gammon v. . Johnson
35 S.E. 185 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 S.E. 4, 110 N.C. 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merritt-milling-co-v-finlay-nc-1892.