Aycock Supply Co. v. Windley
Supreme Court of North Carolina
ActioN tried before Bond, Jat February Term, 1918, of Beaufobt, upon these issues: 1. Is the defendant W. S. Riddick indebted to plaintiff, and if so, in what amount? Answer: $252, with interest from November 1, 1910. 2. Is said defendant barred by statute of limitations, as alleged in tlie answer? Answer: No. Judgment was rendered, by consent, against the defendants Daniel M. and Melson Windley.
Read the full summary
ActioN tried before Bond, Jat February Term, 1918, of Beaufobt, upon these issues: 1. Is the defendant W. S. Riddick indebted to plaintiff, and if so, in what amount? Answer: $252, with interest from November 1, 1910. 2. Is said defendant barred by statute of limitations, as alleged in tlie answer? Answer: No. Judgment was rendered, by consent, against the defendants Daniel M. and Melson Windley. After verdict the judge made the following order: “The court, as a matter of law and not in the exercise of discretion, orders the verdict rendered in this case on the second issue set aside and that…
1Opinion of the CourtBbowN, J.
The purpose of this action is to recover a personal judgment against defendant W. S. Eiddick on a bond, under seal, reading as follows:
Belhavek-, County of Beaufort, State of N. C.
$549.56. . Date, 13 May, 1910.
On or before the 1st day of November, 1910, with interest from maturity, payable annually, I promise to pay to the order of C. P. Aycock Supply Company five hundred and forty-nine and 56-100 dollars, for value ■ received, without offset, the homestead and all other exemptions are hereby waived as to the debt evidenced by this note.
Witness my hand and seal. D. M. WiNdley, (seal)
Purchasing…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Fisher v. . PenderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1860
- Fronebarger v. . HenrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1859