Wilson v. . Jennings

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Wilson v. . Jennings

15 N.C. 90

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 5, 1833

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 15 N.C. 90 (Wilson v. . Jennings) 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

Wilson v. . Jennings, 15 N.C. 90 (N.C. 1833).

Pincite

Opinion

DaNxex, Judge.

After stating the case as above, proceeded:

By the act of 1T89, Rev.c. 314, aplaintiffmaybringhis action, either jointly or severally, on the assumptions of partners and others. It is not pretended, that the individual note of Thompson was agreed to be taken by the plaintiffs in discharge of the partnership debt; and a note given even by all the partners would not extinguish the original undertaking to pay for the goods delivered, like a bond or judgment taken for the same. The plaintiffs still might maintain their action for goods sold and delivered, provided they produced and delivered up the note on the trial, or proved it was destroyed. (Farr v. Price, 3 East. 55, Dangerfield v. Willy, 4 Esp. R. 159.) If the defendant had been bound on the note given by Thompson, then the plaintiffs account would have been liquidated, and the sum being under one hundred dollars, it would have been within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace. But the individual note of Thompson did not liquidate the plaintiffs account qnoad the defendant: it was still, as to him, an open account; and the letter which he wrote to his partner, did not have the effect of giving the note a more extended operation than it had before ; nor did it liquidate the plaintiff’s claim, even as it related to himself, so as to bring' it within the meaning and operation of the act of assembly, for the plaintiff must still prove on the trial, the delivery of the articles. Although Thompson’s note was given and the defendant’s letter was written before the act of 1828 was *92 passed, bringing liquidated claims under one hundred dollars in amount, within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, still a subsequent act was passed in the year 1829, declaring that the meaning of the words “ liquidated accounts,” mentioned in the first act, was to bo confined to signed accounts. The defendant never signed the account, and Thompson’s note still leaves the account open and unliquidated as to the defendant. The action should not have been dismissed.

Per Curiam — Judgment keverse"í>»

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

DaNxex, Judge.

After stating the case as above, proceeded:

By the act of 1T89, Rev.c. 314, aplaintiffmaybringhis action, either jointly or severally, on the assumptions of partners and others. It is not pretended, that the individual note of Thompson was agreed to be taken by the plaintiffs in discharge of the partnership debt; and a note given even by all the partners would not extinguish the original undertaking to pay for the goods delivered, like a bond or judgment taken for the same. The plaintiffs still might maintain their action for goods sold and delivered, provided they produced and delivered up the note on the trial, or proved it was destroyed. (Farr v. Price, 3 East. 55, Dangerfield v. Willy, 4 Esp. R. 159.) If the defendant had been bound on the note given by Thompson, then the plaintiffs account would have been liquidated, and the sum being under one hundred dollars, it would have been within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace. But the individual note of Thompson did not liquidate the plaintiffs account qnoad the defendant: it was still, as to him, an open account; and the letter which he wrote to his partner, did not have the effect of giving the note a more extended operation than it had before ; nor did it liquidate the plaintiff’s claim, even as it related to himself, so as to bring' it within the meaning and operation of the act of assembly, for the plaintiff must still prove on the trial, the delivery of the articles. Although Thompson’s note was given and the defendant’s letter was written before the act of 1828 was *92 passed, bringing liquidated claims under one hundred dollars in amount, within the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, still a subsequent act was passed in the year 1829, declaring that the meaning of the words “ liquidated accounts,” mentioned in the first act, was to bo confined to signed accounts. The defendant never signed the account, and Thompson’s note still leaves the account open and unliquidated as to the defendant. The action should not have been dismissed.

Per Curiam — Judgment keverse"í>»

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 N.C. 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-jennings-nc-1833.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack