Lee v. Greenville, Spartanburg & Anderson Railway Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil actiou, tried February Term, 1917, of MeokleNbubg, before Qline, J., upon this issue: Are tbe defendants indebted to the plaintiff, and if so, in what amount ? Answer: “Yes; $1,000, with interest from 1 November, 1913.” Prom judgment rendered defendants appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBeowN, J.
Plaintiff seeks to recover $1,000 for money received by defendant for his use. A motion to nonsuit was made upon the ground that in no view of the evidence was the money received by defendants for plaintiff’s use.
The evidence is conflicting, but that introduced by plaintiff tends to prove that lie was employed by defendants as chief engineer at a salary of $400 per month, but not for his entire time; that plaintiff contracted with Durham and Southern Railroad Company to do certain engineering work. The work which the plaintiff did for the Durham and Southern Railway did not interfere with the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Barker v. ParkerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1822
- Sanders v. . RaganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Boos v. LangIndiana Supreme Court · 1904
- Leete v. Pacific Mill & Mining Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1898
- Mitchell v. . WalkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1848
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.