Long v. . Pool
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil action, tried before Mitchell, J., at Spring Term, 1872, of Alexander Court. Plaintiff complained against the defendants for the conversion of a note, of which he was the owner, worth $153 in .gold value, and due to him by one Ward, of East Tennessee. The defendants came to the plaintiff’s house in Alexander county, on their way to East Tennessee, in pursuit of a horse which had been stolen from defendant Miller.
Read the full summary
Civil action, tried before Mitchell, J., at Spring Term, 1872, of Alexander Court. Plaintiff complained against the defendants for the conversion of a note, of which he was the owner, worth $153 in .gold value, and due to him by one Ward, of East Tennessee. The defendants came to the plaintiff’s house in Alexander county, on their way to East Tennessee, in pursuit of a horse which had been stolen from defendant Miller. Plaintiff testified that he asked the defendant Pool, in presence of defendant Miller, to take the note and collect the money, and if Ward did not pay it on presentation, not…
1Opinion of the CourtRodman, J.
There was evidence in this case tending to prove two different states of fact between which the jury had to choose.
1. The evidence on the part of the plaintiff tended to prove that he gave the note to Pool upon a contract that he would carry it to Tennessee and endeavor to collect it from the maker, and if he failed to do so on presentation that he would bring it back to the plaintiff. He left it with Hamby to collect, and authorized him to retain out of the proceeds 825, which Miller owed him, which sum Miller agreed to pay plaintiff.
The Judge charged the jury that if they believed this to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Kinney v. . LaughenourSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1883
- Patterson v. . McIverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
- Coquard v. WeinsteinMontana Supreme Court · 1895