Scott v. . Reynolds

79 S.E. 960, 163 N.C. 502, 1913 N.C. LEXIS 202

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: November 12, 1913
• Status: Published

Opinion

Brown, J.

Tbis action is brought to recover an account for groceries alleged to bave been purchased by defendant’s intestate from tbe plaintiffs. .

Tbe defendant assigns error because tbe witness Maun was permitted to testify that tbe account presented to L. M. Scott, defendant’s intestate, was for. groceries. Tbe witness Mann testified:

Tbat be works for C. Scott & Co.; clerk in tbe store; tbat be knew Levi M. Scott; tbat be bad beard tbe .testimony of Mr. 0. Scott; tbat be presented tbe- account tp Mr. Levy Scott; tbat be took it and looked at it and said: “Tbat is Mr. Clarence Scott, is it?” Witness said, “Yes, sir.” He said, “Tbat is all right. I am expecting some dividends from some insurance cases along later in tbe spring, and I want to settle tbat up.”

Tbis is all tba.t witness said to bim about it. Tbat Mr. Scott looked at tbe account wben be said it- was all right, and bad tbe account in bis bands wben be said tbat; tbat tbe amount of tbe account was $631.63; tbat tbe account was the same one presented here; tbat tbis is tbe account be presented, without tbe interest on it.

Upon cross-examination, tbe witness testified tbat it was some time right after tbe first of tbe year of 1911 wben be presented tbe. account to Mr. Scott; tbat be presented it to bim in bis office, right over here near tbe courthouse. On redirect examination, witness testified tbat be did not sell any of tbe goods to Mr. Scott; tbat Mr. Scott never traded any there after be went to work there for Mr. Scott. Witness was asked tbis question: “What was tbe account you presented to bim for?” Defendant objected. Tbe court remarked: “I think it is competent.” Defendant excepted. Witness answered: “For groceries.”

We see no merit in tbis exception. If tbe evidence is believed, it proves tbat tbe account was duly presented for payment to defendant’s intestate and tbat be recognized and promised to pay it.

It is true tbe witness did not personally sell tbe goods, but tbe fact tbat they were groceries was doubtless apparent in-the account itself.

Tbe remaining assignments of error have as little merit as tbe above, and need no discussion.

Having proved to tbe satisfaction of the jury tbat tbe account was duly presented and tbat tbe defendant’s intestate promised to pay it, tbe plaintiff was clearly entitled to interest.

No error.