Hardy v. Carr
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Pleading — Trial by Jury — Homestead—Vendor’s Lien — Judgment by Default. Civil action, tried before Montgomery, J., at Eall Term, 1888, of Edgecombe Superior Court.
Read the full summary
Pleading — Trial by Jury — Homestead—Vendor’s Lien — Judgment by Default. Civil action, tried before Montgomery, J., at Eall Term, 1888, of Edgecombe Superior Court. The action begun on July 13, 1888, is prosecuted against the defendants Carr and Mayo, the former maker, and the latter endorser, of a promissory note, in these words: $2,889.38. Whitaker's, N. C., November 1, 1886. One day after date, I promise to pay to James M. Mayo, or order, twenty-eight hundred and eighty-nine dollars and thirty-eight cents,- value received, it being in part payment of the purchase money in premises and…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, C. J.
(after stating the case). The appellant sets up an equitable defence to the enforcement of the entire debt, because of a false and fraudulent representation as to the debtor’s exoneration from certain liabilities, which was an inducement to the giving of the note and formed a part of the consideration, and because, in consequence, it would be inequitable to compel him to pay its full amount. This averment raises an inquiry to the determination of which a finding by the jury was necessary, and an issue should *36have been prepared and submitted, and it was wholly irregular in the Court to render…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Dickerson v. WilcoxonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
3Cited by2 opinions
- Summers Hardware Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- Goldsboro Milling Co. v. ReavesDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1991