Witherington v. . Phillips

70 N.C. 444
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 5, 1874
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 70 N.C. 444 (Witherington v. . Phillips) 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
Witherington v. . Phillips, 70 N.C. 444 (N.C. 1874).

Opinion

RodhaN, J.

The case of McKenzie v. Culbreth, 66 N. C., 534, settles that the payment, evidenced by the receipt of 1st of *445 November, 1865, being for an appreciable sum less than the amount due on the note, did not discharge the note in full, but was only a payment pro tanto. The payment is not even stated to be in full in the receipt. The Judge erred therefore in holding it a discharge in full. Judgment reversed and plaintiff will recover in this Court the residue of the note after deducting the payment. It is certainly to be regretted that so much costs should have been incurred for a pitiful claim of about thirty-seven cents.

Pee Cueiah. Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Noll v. Harrison County Bank
11 S.W.2d 1076 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1928)
Bank of North Carolina v. Dewey
2 F. Cas. 670 (E.D. North Carolina, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 N.C. 444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/witherington-v-phillips-nc-1874.