Mitchell v. . Durham
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Person. Case, in which the Plaintiff declared, 1st, for a breach of duty by the Defendant, as the agent.of the Plaintiff $ $d, for a neglect of the Defendant in the discharge of his duty as a Constable; 3d, for a similar neglect in the discharge of his duty as a deputy Sheriff. The ¡¡leas were, not guilty, and accord and satisfaction. The jury found “ all the issues in favor of the Plaintiff.” And the Defendant appealed.
Read the full summary
From Person. Case, in which the Plaintiff declared, 1st, for a breach of duty by the Defendant, as the agent.of the Plaintiff $ $d, for a neglect of the Defendant in the discharge of his duty as a Constable; 3d, for a similar neglect in the discharge of his duty as a deputy Sheriff. The ¡¡leas were, not guilty, and accord and satisfaction. The jury found “ all the issues in favor of the Plaintiff.” And the Defendant appealed. A case was made up in the Court below by his Honor Judge StraNGE, upon a motion for a new trial — which it is unnecessary to state, as Winston, for the Defendant, in…
1Opinion of the Court
Ruffin, Judge.
The instructions to the jury are. now out of the case, by the Counsel for the Defendant moving in arrest of judgment, and thereby abandoning the rule for a new trial.
The ground of the motion in this Court is, that the count charging the Defendant as deputy Sheriff is bad. The case cited in argument, (Cameron v. Reynolds Cowp, 403.) besides many others, does undoubtedly show, that for a mere non-feasance, without any wrongful act done by the deputy, the action must be against the principal, and not the deputy.
The rule too is so perfectly established, as not to require an…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Trust Co. v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Baer v. . McCallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937