Wilson v. . Hood, Comr. of Banks
This text of 179 S.E. 660 (Wilson v. . Hood, Comr. of Banks) 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
179 S.E. 660, 208 N.C. 200, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-hood-comr-of-banks-nc-1935.