Durham Fertilizer Co. v. L. M. Little & Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil aotioN, tried- before Tirriberlalce, J., at August Term, 1895, of UnioN Superior Court. The affidavit upon which defendants were arrested is as follows: James Hayes, being duly sworn, says : “1. That he is the agent of Durham Fertilizer Company, •a corporation created under the laws of the State of North Carolina, and doing business at Durham, North Carolina.
Read the full summary
Civil aotioN, tried- before Tirriberlalce, J., at August Term, 1895, of UnioN Superior Court. The affidavit upon which defendants were arrested is as follows: James Hayes, being duly sworn, says : “1. That he is the agent of Durham Fertilizer Company, •a corporation created under the laws of the State of North Carolina, and doing business at Durham, North Carolina. “ 2. That, on the 5th day of February, 1891, the defendants, L. M. Little & Co., composed of the defendants, L. M. Little and J. W. Hasty, entered into a contract with the plaintiff, (a copy of which is hereto attached as a part of…
1Opinion of the Court
Montgomery, J.:
This action was commenced by the plaintiffs against the defendants as partners to recover the amount due on a promissory note. No denial of the debt was made, and a judgment for the indebtedness claimed was entered up in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants without objection. The appeals by both defendants in the case are not from the judgment deelarv ing the debt, but from the order made in reference to the ancillary remedy of arrest and bail which the plaintiffs had availed themselves of to better secure the fruits of their recovery. The order of arrest was issued…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Travers v. . DeatonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- Bridgers v. . TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
- Boykin, Parmer & Co. v. W. J. Maddrey & SonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894