Patapsco Guano Co. v. Tillery
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil action, tried at Fall Term, 1891,-of Halifax Superior Court, Bryan, J, presiding. This action is founded upon the promissory note of the defendant for $418, due the 1st of March, 1888, executed to the plaintiff’s agent, who endorsed the same to it.
Read the full summary
Civil action, tried at Fall Term, 1891,-of Halifax Superior Court, Bryan, J, presiding. This action is founded upon the promissory note of the defendant for $418, due the 1st of March, 1888, executed to the plaintiff’s agent, who endorsed the same to it. The defendant admitted the execution of the note as alleged, but alleged as a counter-claim that the consideration thereof was the plaintiff’s agreement to supply him with “ten tons of genuine Peruvian guano”; that it failed to deliver such guano, but did deliver that quantity of an inferior fertilizer of value not greater than $15 per ton;…
1Opinion of the CourtMerrimon, C. J.
after stating the case: The Court gave the jury pertinent instructions, and if the defendant desired that they be modified, or that others in addition be given, he should have asked for the same at the time of the trial. It would be unreasonable, unjust and vicious practice to allow a party to complain after verdict and judgment (the Court having given the jury appropriate instructions), that it had failed to give possible instructions that it might and perhaps would have given if they had been called to its attention at the proper time. The law as to procedure and practice is just and very…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hurst, Miller & Co. v. EverettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
- Lutz v. . ThompsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
- Wilson v. . HughesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
- Sapona Iron Company v. . HoltSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1870
3Cited by2 opinions
- Woodridge v. . BrownSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. BurgerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921