Warning v. . Richardson
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Pasquotank County, at the Spring Term 1850, his Honor Judge Elus presiding. This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover the sum of @61 19, with interest on the same from the 15th of March, 1842. The plaintiffs proved by their agent that on the 15th of March 1S42, the defendant received from them a note to collect as their agent: that the note was the property of the plaintiffs and was originally drawn payable to one.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Pasquotank County, at the Spring Term 1850, his Honor Judge Elus presiding. This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover the sum of @61 19, with interest on the same from the 15th of March, 1842. The plaintiffs proved by their agent that on the 15th of March 1S42, the defendant received from them a note to collect as their agent: that the note was the property of the plaintiffs and was originally drawn payable to one. For the purpose of repelling the plea of the statute of limitations and showing the collection of the note by the defendant, the…
1Opinion of the Court
Nash J.
It is deemed unnecessary to decide the question, upon which the opinion of the Judge below7 was given. From the statements of the case, the point did notarise. The plaintiffs had put into the hands of the defendant, for collection, a promissory note, and the ac tion is brought for collecting the money and not paying it over. Among other defences the defendant relied upon the Statute of Limitations. The complaint is not for a breach of duty in collecting, not for undertaking and entering upon an agency, for a compensation, and then either failing to perform it, or performing it so…
2Cited by1 opinion
- White v. . MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1838