McLin v. McNamara
Supreme Court of North Carolina
The plaintiff resided at Newbem, and the defendant’s intestate at Salisbury — the former had sent to the' latter various invoices of goods for sale, and had purchased for him household furniture.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff resided at Newbem, and the defendant’s intestate at Salisbury — the former had sent to the' latter various invoices of goods for sale, and had purchased for him household furniture. The defendant’s intestate had made sundry remittances to the plaintiff on these accounts, and the latter in July 1829, wrote requesting an account of sales, and also for a remittance of the balance due him; complaining “that the accounts between us have really remained unsettled longer than I could have wished.” In reply to this letter, Ferrand, on the 5th of October, 1829, wrote as follows: — “ I…
1Opinion of the Court
Daniel, Judge,
after stating the case, proceeded as follows: — The defendant’s counsel contend, first, that the ac-ii -ii-i . counts are not mutual, but are all on the side or the piaintin, and that he should have proceeded at law. We think this objection is not tenable. We admit, that to entertain a bill in equity for an account, there must be mutual demands; a series of accounts on one hand, and a series of payments on the other, and not merely one payment and one receipt, Dinwiddie v. Bailey, 6 Ves. 136, 9 Ves. 473, 1 Mad. c. p. 8 6. i3ut here tne bill expressly charges and the answer…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Laanui v. PuohuHawaii Supreme Court · 1859
3Cited by2 opinions
- Humane Bit Co. v. BarnetU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1902
- Toomer v. Long.Superior Court of North Carolina · 1797