Moore v. . Harkins

89 S.E. 43, 171 N.C. 696, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 146
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMay 31, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 S.E. 43 (Moore v. . Harkins) 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
Moore v. . Harkins, 89 S.E. 43, 171 N.C. 696, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 146 (N.C. 1916).

Opinion

AlleN, J.

The plaintiff testified: “The six drafts belong to me. I have had possession of them all the time since they were given, and I promptly told Douglas about them or I wrote him about them at once. I know they were not to be paid until Douglas got the money from the Government to pay them, and so did Harkins.”

This evidence was admitted without objection, and, if true, the right of action has not accrued to the plaintiff, as the Government has not paid any part of the money claimed to be due on the account of E. M. Douglas, and the plaintiff says the drafts “were not to be paid until Douglas got the money from the Government.” Sykes v. Everett, 167 N. C., 606; Buskirk v. Kuhns, 32 A. and E. Anno. Cases, 932.

There was, therefore, no error in entering judgment of nonsuit.

Affirmed.

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

Related

King Bros. Shoe Store Co. v. Wiseman
94 S.E. 452 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
Luttrell v. . Martin
17 S.E. 573 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 S.E. 43, 171 N.C. 696, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-harkins-nc-1916.