Ives v. . Jones
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Currituck County, at Spring Term, 1843, his Honor Judge Pearson presiding. This was an action- of Assumpsit. The plaintiff proved that the defendant had contracted to sell him a piece of land, and that ha had taken possession of it' in pursuance of the contract; the title to be made when the land was paid for. The plaintiff was the overseer of the defendant; and attended to his hands on a plantation some few miles distant.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Currituck County, at Spring Term, 1843, his Honor Judge Pearson presiding. This was an action- of Assumpsit. The plaintiff proved that the defendant had contracted to sell him a piece of land, and that ha had taken possession of it' in pursuance of the contract; the title to be made when the land was paid for. The plaintiff was the overseer of the defendant; and attended to his hands on a plantation some few miles distant. The defendant told the plaintiS that the fence, on one side of the tract he had agreed to sell him, did not run quite out to the…
1Opinion of the CourtRuffin, C. J.
We think his Honor put the case upon the true ground, and that the judgment must be affirmed. The", correct distinction is stated in the case ot Merriweather v Nixon, 8 T. R. 186, which has been cited for the defendant. The particulars of that case are not given in the report, but the injury must have been forcible and wanton. For Lord Kenyon, after recognizing the general rule, that there could be no contribution between joint wrong doers, nor, of course, redress upon a contract to do an unlawful thing, distinguishes that case from one, in which there could be redress, by saying “ that…
2Cited by2 opinions
- McArthor v. OgletreeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
- Citizens State Bank v. RosenbergerSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1918