Thompson v. N. A. Currie & Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Thompson v. N. A. Currie & Co.

150 S.E. 14, 197 N.C. 793, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 386

DecidedOctober 23, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 150 S.E. 14 (Thompson v. N. A. Currie & Co.) 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

Thompson v. N. A. Currie & Co., 150 S.E. 14, 197 N.C. 793, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 386 (N.C. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs’ assignments of error on their appeal to this Court cannot he sustained.

The receipt offered in evidence by the plaintiffs shows on its face that the money, to wit, the sum of $1,162.62, for which it was issued was paid by plaintiffs to defendant in settlement of plaintiffs’ account with defendant. There was no contention that plaintiffs have paid to defendant any other money than that shown by the receipt. Plaintiffs kept the receipt as written for nearly nine years, before contending that they had paid the note secured by the mortgage and that the receipt was *794 evidence of suck payment. They do not now contend that there was any •mistake or fraud in the receipt. The instruction of the court with respect to the receipt cannot be held for reversible error.

The issue submitted to the jury involved only a question of fact. This question was submitted to the jury in a charge which we think is not subject to the exception that the court failed to comply with C. S., 564. The judgment is affirmed.

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs’ assignments of error on their appeal to this Court cannot he sustained.

The receipt offered in evidence by the plaintiffs shows on its face that the money, to wit, the sum of $1,162.62, for which it was issued was paid by plaintiffs to defendant in settlement of plaintiffs’ account with defendant. There was no contention that plaintiffs have paid to defendant any other money than that shown by the receipt. Plaintiffs kept the receipt as written for nearly nine years, before contending that they had paid the note secured by the mortgage and that the receipt was *794 evidence of suck payment. They do not now contend that there was any •mistake or fraud in the receipt. The instruction of the court with respect to the receipt cannot be held for reversible error.

The issue submitted to the jury involved only a question of fact. This question was submitted to the jury in a charge which we think is not subject to the exception that the court failed to comply with C. S., 564. The judgment is affirmed.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 S.E. 14, 197 N.C. 793, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-n-a-currie-co-nc-1929.