Parker v. . Horton
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by botb parties from Garter, J., at the July Term, 1918, of HERTFORD. This is an action against E. TI. Horton and Eula A. Horton to recover interest on a note before the principal became due,' commenced before a justice of the peace and heard in the Superior Court on the appeal of the defendants.
Read the full summary
Appeal by botb parties from Garter, J., at the July Term, 1918, of HERTFORD. This is an action against E. TI. Horton and Eula A. Horton to recover interest on a note before the principal became due,' commenced before a justice of the peace and heard in the Superior Court on the appeal of the defendants. The return of the justice shows that the plaintiff complained for an amount of interest due on a note and filed a written complaint, and that the defendants denied the right of the plaintiff to recover, and filed a written answer. The written complaint of plaintiff alleged that on 24 July,…
1Opinion of the CourtAlleN, J.
This act'on to recover interest before the principal became due cfn be maintained because by the terms of the note the interest is payable annually (Bledsoe v. Nixon, 69 N. C., 91; Scott v. Fisher, 110 N. C., 311), and the jurisdiction of the justice’s court is not defeated by reason of the note being executed for the purchase of land. McPeters v English, 141 N. C., 491.
We have then an action properly constituted, of which the court had jurisd-’ction, and as it was pend:ng before a justice of the peace the parties could, at their election, plead orally or in writing. “If oral, tie substance…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bank of Sampson v. HatcherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- Scott v. . FisherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892
- McPeters v. English.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906