Camp Manufacturing Co. v. Durham Fertilizer Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from Long, J., at January Term, 1909, of Durham. Action to recover the sum of $860, being the principal, together with interest thereon from 1 January, 1893, of a judgment recovered by the defendant at March Term, 1893, of the Superior Court o'f Durham County, against J. E. Newsome, Robert Holloman and W. E. Jenkins.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Long, J., at January Term, 1909, of Durham. Action to recover the sum of $860, being the principal, together with interest thereon from 1 January, 1893, of a judgment recovered by the defendant at March Term, 1893, of the Superior Court o'f Durham County, against J. E. Newsome, Robert Holloman and W. E. Jenkins. This judgment, on 21 March, 1901, was assigned to plaintiff by defendant “for value received and without recourse on it,” the real consideration paid for the assignment being $75. The defendant pleaded that it was not liable under the terms of the assignment and the…
1Opinion of the Court
Brown, J.,
after stating the facts: In the statement of facts it appears that the judgment assigned was entirely regular upon its face. It afterwards transpired that, while purporting to liave been served on the defendant Jenkins,, in fact, the summons bad never been served on him.
The defendant admits the general rule to be that there is an implied warranty on the part of the assignor of a judgment that such judgment is a valid, subsisting obligation against the debtor for the amount specified therein, and has not been paid, in whole or in part. But it is contended that the use of the words…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Thompson v. First State BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
3Cited by1 opinion
- DSK Enterprises, Inc. v. United Jersey BankNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1983