Bell v. . Ballance
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Beaufort. This was a warrant, in which i( ilie sum of twenty-five dollars due by account, to his damage ten dollars” was claimed by the Plaintiff.
Read the full summary
From Beaufort. This was a warrant, in which i( ilie sum of twenty-five dollars due by account, to his damage ten dollars” was claimed by the Plaintiff. On (he trial, it appeared that one Bishop, as agent for tiie Plaintiff, sold to the Defendant a rifle, for twenty-five dollars, wlio paid for il in a note made by John Warner, Joseph Warner, and Anthony Oneal, payable to one Farris, and also in a judgment against one Robert McKay, and agreed to take them hack in case they could not be collected, and.cither return the rifle or pay the Plaintiff twenty-five dollars. It was proved that at the…
1Opinion of the Court
Taylor, Chief-Justice.
The warrant in this case stafes a demand, which in amount, is within the jurisdiction of a magistrate, and this ought to appear in every case ; but if upon the evidence, the subject matter is shown to be without his jurisdiction, the objection" may be availed of at any time. The objections raised to the Plaintiff’s recovery arc, that his action for tire sale of the rifle is extinguished, and his remedy is on the undertaking to take back the notes. I apprehend the rule to be, that where a particular mode of payment is agreed on, which is not complied with, the Plaintiffs…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Breed v. Cook & CadwellNew York Supreme Court · 1818
- Pierce & Pierce v. DrakeNew York Supreme Court · 1818
3Cited by3 opinions
- Rutherford v. RaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- State v. Alexander.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1825
- Thompson v. . GaylardSuperior Court of North Carolina · 1801