Planters Stores Co. v. Bullock

104 S.E. 65, 180 N.C. 656, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 158
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 29, 1920
StatusPublished

This text of 104 S.E. 65 (Planters Stores Co. v. Bullock) 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
Planters Stores Co. v. Bullock, 104 S.E. 65, 180 N.C. 656, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 158 (N.C. 1920).

Opinion

Pee OubiaM.

Tbe evidence is meager, but we cannot say there is none in support of tbe contention of tbe defendants.

It appears, however, from tbe record that there is error in tbe amount recovered by tbe defendant, and tbe judgment must be reformed.

Tbe total account for 1914 and 1915 is $652.39, of which $410.16 is for 1914, and $242.23 for 1915.

Tbe female defendant is, on tbe verdict, only liable for tbe account of 1915.

Tbe total payments made are $315.22, but of this sum $125 should be applied to tbe account of 1914, because tbe proceeds of tbe sale of a horse conveyed by mortgage to secure that account, which would leave $190.22, to be applied to tbe account of 1915, leaving $52.01 due on that account, which, when deducted from tbe two sums of $290 and $40.69, aggregating $330.69, recovered by tbe defendant, gives as tbe true amount of tbe judgment $280.68.

Let tbe judgment be reformed accordingly.

Tbe costs of tbe appeal will be divided.

Modified and affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 S.E. 65, 180 N.C. 656, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/planters-stores-co-v-bullock-nc-1920.