Wilson v. . Hood, Comr. of Banks

179 S.E. 660, 208 N.C. 200, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 360
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 1, 1935·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Stacy, O. J.

It was conceded on the argument that, upon the record as presented, the plea of payment, if established, and not that of estop-pel, constitutes the only valid defense to plaintiff’s claim. Annotation: 25 A. L. E., 170. As this was not passed upon in the court below, and the evidence directed to- the point is nebulous, the case will be remanded for further proceedings.

Error in dismissing the action upon the plea of estoppel having been confessed, necessarily works a reversal of the present judgment. An appeal ex necessitate follows the theory of the trial. Hargett v. Lee, 206 N. C., 536, 174 S. E., 498; Walker v. Burt, 182 N. C., 325, 109 S. E., 43; Shipp v. Stage Lines, 192 N. C., 475, 135 S. E., 339.

Eeversed.

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

Wilson v. . Hood, Comr. of Banks, 179 S.E. 660, 208 N.C. 200, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 360 (N.C. 1935).

179 S.E. 660 (Wilson v. . Hood, Comr. of Banks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Housing Authority of City of Salisbury
70 S.E.2d 500 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
Leggett v. Southeastern People's College, Inc.
68 S.E.2d 263 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)