White v. McCarter

134 S.E.2d 612, 261 N.C. 362, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 455
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 26, 1964·No. 104·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

McCarter’s cross-action against Frazier raises the simple question whether Frazier had fully accounted for the $900 collected by him and, if not, the amount of his default. The court placed the burden upon McCarter to satisfy the jury by the greater weight of the evidence that Frazier is indebted to her and the amount of the indebtedness. Of this, Frazier is in no position to complain. The purport of his pleadings is that he collected $900 for McCarter and paid it to her in full. Payment is an affirmative plea and the burden of showing payment is on the one who relies on payment as a defense. Davis v. Dockery, 209 N.C. 272, 183 S.E. 396; Furst v. Taylor, 204 N.C. 603, 169 S.E. 185; Thomas v. Gwyn, 131 N.C. 460, 42 S.E. 904. Frazier’s contention that the burden of the issue was upon McCarter to satisfy the jury of the indebtedness and the amount thereof by clear, cogent and convincing evidence is without foundation. Henley v. Holt, 221 N.C. 274, 20 S.E. 2d 62, relied on by Frazier, is not in point.

In the trial below we find

No error.

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

White v. McCarter, 134 S.E.2d 612, 261 N.C. 362, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 455 (N.C. 1964).

134 S.E.2d 612 (White v. McCarter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Consolidated Vending Co. v. Turner
148 S.E.2d 531 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1966)
Lett v. Markham
145 S.E.2d 907 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1966)
Brown v. Griffin
138 S.E.2d 823 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)