Youngblood v. . Taylor

150 S.E. 614, 198 N.C. 6, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 391
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 27, 1929·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Staoy, C. J.

It is in evidence that on 1 August, 1927, defendant gave plaintiffs a check for $379.81, with notation, “For Acct. in full,” appearing thereon, which was cashed by plaintiffs. Defendant pleads this check in bar of plaintiff’s claim, under the principle of accord and satisfaction as announced in Hardware Co. v. Farmers Federation, 195 N. C., 702, 143 S. E., 471, and cases there cited.

It appears, however, that the check of 1 August, 1927, was for the exact amount of defendant’s “grocery account,” and that his “dry goods account” of $183.10 was not then due. Plaintiffs’ right to recover for the undisputed “dry goods account” is supported by the decisions in Oil Co. v. Moore, 195 N. C., 305, 141 S. E., 926, Refining Corp. v. Sanders, 190 N. C., 203, 129 S. E., 607, and Bogert v. Manufacturing Co., 172 N. C., 248, 90 S. E., 208.

But as the dry goods account .was not due until 30 December, 1927, it was error to allow interest from 21 June, 1927. ' This was an inadvertence, and plaintiffs consent to a modification of the judgment. As thus modified, the verdict and judgment will be upheld.

Modified and Affirmed.

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

Youngblood v. . Taylor, 150 S.E. 614, 198 N.C. 6, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 391 (N.C. 1929).

150 S.E. 614 (Youngblood v. . Taylor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lochner v. Silver Sales Service, Inc.
59 S.E.2d 218 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)