Pierce v. Bierman

Tbe defendants in tbe cross-action instituted by Bierman, assert that there was no competent evidence of fraud or conspiracy, and that the cross-action should have been nonsuited upon motion duly made. The difference in the liability imposed arising from the purcháse of property “subject to a debt” and that arising when a purchaser “assumes and agrees to pay a debt” is defined and applied in Keller v. Parrish, 196 N. C., 733, 147 S. E., 9; Harvey v. Knitting Co., 197 N. C., 177, 148 S. E., 45. It is obvious from the evidence that Bierman did not understand the difference between these two…