Clark v. . Dupree
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Northampton. Tills was an action commenced by a warrant, which was sued out the 5th of June,. 1826. By a rule of the County Court, tiie Plaintiff had been permitted to sue in forma pauperis.
Read the full summary
From Northampton. Tills was an action commenced by a warrant, which was sued out the 5th of June,. 1826. By a rule of the County Court, tiie Plaintiff had been permitted to sue in forma pauperis. On the trial, before Ills Honor Judge StraNge, the proof was, that the Defendant had admitted that he had received three bales of cotton from the Plaintiff to sell on his account in Petersburg&emdash;that he had not sold it, or received any tiling for it&emdash;but had stored it in Peters-burg in his, the Defendant’s, own name, and that the Plaintiff owed him an account&emdash;the account was…
1Opinion of the Court
Ruffin, Judge.
There was no evidence of a sale of the cotton to the Defendant, nor of a sale by him, and receipt of the price. The declarations of the Defendant, which the Plaintiff gave in evidence, prove thé contrary. His receipt given the lfth of May shows that it was not then sold. The warrant was sued out on the 5th of June. The intervening time was of itself too short to be left to the jury, as evidence of a sale. It is unnecessary to consider the effect of storing the goods in the Defendant’s name. If it could amount under the circumstances to a conversion, nb Court can entertain…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Griffis v. LazarovichCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
- Griffis v. LazarovichCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
- Griffis v. LazarovichCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004