Guy v. Gould, 566.
| Decision Date | 18 May 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 566.,566. |
| Citation | 164 S.E. 120,202 N.C. 727 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | GUY v. GOULD et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, McDowell County; Sink, Special Judge.
Action by W. W. Guy against C. A. Gould and others, in which defendants filed counterclaims. From the judgment, defendants appeal.
No error.
This is an action to recover the balance due on the rent for the unexpired term of a lease executed by the plaintiff to the defendants, C. A. Gould, Marcus R. Field, and Francis E. Field, for a lot of land situate in the village of Biltmore, N. C.
The lease is dated August 13, 1923, and was for a term of eight years from its date. The rent at the rate of $250 per month was paid to August 13, 1928. The defendants have failed to pay the rent which has accrued since said date. The amount now due is $9,-000, less the sum of $40, which was collected by plaintiff as rent for the lot of land, afterplaintiff took possession under the terms of the lease, upon the default of defendants in the payment of the rent.
Summons in this action was not served on the defendant C. A. Gould or on the defendant Marcus R. Field. It was duly served on each of the other defendants, who filed answers to the complaint.
On February 6, 1925, Marcus R. Field, as assignee of his colessees, executed a lease for the lot of land described in the lease from the plaintiff, to the defendant T. A. Hair, and on September 8, 1925, the defendant T. A. Hair executed a lease for said lot of land to the defendant, Pig & Whistle, Inc. Each of said sublessees agreed with his lessor to pay as rent for said lot of land the sum of $250 per month during the remainder of the term of the lease from the plaintiff to the defendants C. A. Gould, Marcus R. Field, and Francis E. Field. Neither of said sublessees have paid the rent which has accrued under their respective leases since August 13, 1928.
Each of the answering defendants in his answer admitted the allegations of the complaint, and relied upon the counterclaim set up in his further answer. Neither defendant, however, offered evidence in support of his counterclaim.
At the close of all the evidence, the motions of the defendants T. A. Hair and Pig & Whistle, Inc., for judgment as of nonsuit as against the plaintiff, and of the plaintiff for judgment as of nonsuit on the counterclaims set up in the further answers. were allowed.
The only issue submitted to the jury was answered as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Piazza v. Kirkbride
...if possible ..." Strum v. Greenville Timberline, LLC, 186 N.C.App. 662, 665, 652 S.E.2d 307, 309 (2007) (quoting Guy v. Gould, 202 N.C. 727, 729, 164 S.E. 120, 121 (1932) ). " ‘The trial judge has the discretionary power to set aside a verdict when, in his opinion, it would work injustice t......
-
Piazza v. Kirkbride
...have stated "that a verdict should be liberally and favorably construed with a view of sustaining it, if possible." Guy v. Gould , 202 N.C. 727, 729, 164 S.E. 120, 121 (1932).4 Our authority to overturn a trial court's discretionary decision to grant or deny a new trial motion should be exe......
-
Chisum v. Campagna, 16 CVS 2419
.... . .' Strum v. Greenville Timberline, LLC, 186 N.C.App. 662, 665, 652 S.E.2d 307, 309 (2007) (quoting Guy v. Gould, 202 N.C. 727, 729, 164 S.E. 120, 121 (1932)). '"The trial judge has the discretionary power to set aside a verdict when, in his opinion, it would work injustice to let it sta......
-
Litaker v. Bost, 523
...possible, and in ascertaining its meaning resort may be had to the pleadings, the evidence and the charge of the court.' Guy v. Gould, 202 N.C. 727, 164 S.E. 120, 121. Too, admissions of the parties, if any, 226 be considered. Jerninan v. Jernigan, 226 N.C. 204, 37 S.E.2d 493. Moreover, the......