Shell v. . Aiken

71 S.E. 230, 155 N.C. 212, 1911 N.C. LEXIS 374
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMay 11, 1911
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 71 S.E. 230 (Shell v. . Aiken) 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
Shell v. . Aiken, 71 S.E. 230, 155 N.C. 212, 1911 N.C. LEXIS 374 (N.C. 1911).

Opinion

Clark, O. J.

Tbe plaintiffs, Shell & Southerland, a partnership, sold their livery business to the defendants, who were husband and wife, taking a note, signed by them both, in the sum of $600, upon which this action is brought. The husband pleaded as a counterclaim that subsequently to the above sale the plaintiffs sold him a surrey for $142 and warranted the same; that the surrey proved to be worthless, and he sets up damages for the breach of warranty as a counterclaim. The jury assessed the counterclaim at $100, which was deducted from the amount which was admitted to be due upon the note.

The plaintiffs present several exceptions, but in their brief they are practically reduced to two propositions. They contend that the counterclaim wás due to the husband only, and therefore judgment should have been rendered against the wife for the full amount of the note. But, as the note was joint and several, any credit allowed thereon in the judgment rendered against one *213 of tbe obligors will, of course, be a payment as to tbe other. Tbe note sued on was due to tbe partnership, and tbe counterclaim was owing by tbe partnership, and was therefore properly allowed as a counterclaim.

Tbe second contention of tbe plaintiffs is that tbe counterclaim was for a tort, and inasmuch as it did not arise out of tbe same transaction it could not be set up as a counterclaim. Eevisal, 481. Tbe answer to this is that tbe damages for breach of warranty arise out of contract, and are therefore a proper counterclaim. Even if tbe counterclaim bad been for fraud and deceit, and therefore an action ex delicto under tbe old procedure, tbe defendant could waive the tort and sue in contract. Bullinger v. Marshall, 70 N. C., 526.

No Error.

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

Related

Burns v. Gulf Oil Corporation
98 S.E.2d 339 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
Michigan Sanitarium & Benevolent Ass'n v. Neal
139 S.E. 841 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1927)
Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Burger
181 N.C. 241 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 S.E. 230, 155 N.C. 212, 1911 N.C. LEXIS 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shell-v-aiken-nc-1911.