Russell H. Kingsbury v. . John Flemming
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an action of debt on a single bill, commenced under the old system, and tried at July special Term 1811, of ■Granville Superior Court, before His Honor, Judge Watts ■and a jury, upon the pleas of payment, set-off and illegal consideration, but the case turned upon the last plea. - There was evidence tending to show that the defendant Elemming, the principaLin the note borrowed the money for which the single bill was given, to hire a substitute to put in Ms place as…
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt on a single bill, commenced under the old system, and tried at July special Term 1811, of ■Granville Superior Court, before His Honor, Judge Watts ■and a jury, upon the pleas of payment, set-off and illegal consideration, but the case turned upon the last plea. - There was evidence tending to show that the defendant Elemming, the principaLin the note borrowed the money for which the single bill was given, to hire a substitute to put in Ms place as a soldier in the Confederate army, and that such purpose was communicated to the plaintiff at the time ; there was also…
1Opinion of the CourtRodMAN, J.
The eases of Critcher v. Holloway, 64 N. C., 526, and Kingsbury v. Gooch, Ib. 328, are binding authorities-that one who lends money to another, knowing that his purpose is to hire a substitute for the Confederate army with it, does an illegal act, and a note taken upon such contract is void. This case however differs from those in this respect; here the defendant did not in fact apply the money to the illegal purpose; from some cause he did not put in a substitute, and offered to return the money to the plaintiff, who declined to receive it. ,
Á majority of the Court think this makes no…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Critcher v. . HollowaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1870
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cronly v. . HallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1872
- Logan v. . PlummerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874