Basnight v. Southern Jobbing Co
Decision Date | 30 September 1908 |
Citation | 148 N.C. 350,62 S.E. 420 |
Parties | BASNIGHT. v. SOUTHERN JOBBING CO. et al. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Evidence—Parol Evidence — Admissibility to Contradict Writing.
Defendants, being sued on their written guaranty as individual stockholders that their corporation would pay plaintiff a specified sum for his stock at his option, could not show by parol that it was agreed when the instrument was signed that they should not be personally liable, though their titles as officers of the corporation were affixed to their signatures.
[Ed. Note—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 20, Evidence, § 1908.]
Appeal from Superior Court, Craven County; W. R. Allen, Judge.
Action by J. S. Basnight against the Southern Jobbing Company and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants J. J. Baxter and W. G. O'Neal appeal. Affirmed.
This is an action by the plaintiff against the Southern Jobbing Company, J. J. Baxter, and W. G. O'Neal, to recover the sum of $5,000, which was paid to them for 50 shares of the stock of the jobbing company, under an agreement between him and the said parties which is as follows:
The contract is set out in the complaint In their answers J. J. Baxter and W. G. O'Neal admit that they executed the contract, but aver that it was not executed by them as sureties, as it was agreed at the time they signed it that they should not be liable individually as sureties, and they affixed their official titles to their names and intended to sign it merely as officers of the corporation.
Without objection by the defendants the court submitted issues to the jury which, with the answers thereto, are as follows:
The defendant J. J. Baxter testified: W. G. O'Neal testified to the same effect.
The plaintiff testified: That there was no such agreement, but that the defendants Baxter and O'Neal were to be liable individually as sureties, according to the terms of the contract. That before the contract was executed he had several verbal conversations with the officers of the company and told them to put their proposition in writing. Whereupon they delivered to him a paper, in the handwriting of Baxter, of which the following is a copy: That in reply to that paper he handed them a paper of which the following is a copy: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Furst & Thomas v. Merritt
... ... 181, 63 S.E. 734; ... Whitehurst v. Insurance Co., 149 N.C. 273, 62 S.E ... 1067; Basnight v. Jobbing Co., 148 N.C. 350, 62 S.E ... 420; Hayes v. Railroad, 143 N.C. 129, 55 S.E. 437, ... ...
-
Hampton Guano Co. v. Hill Live Stock Co.
... ... Maness, 102 N.C. 457, 9 S.E. 399; Cobb v ... Clegg, 137 N.C. 153, 49 S.E. 80; Basnight v. Jobbing ... Co., 148 N.C. 356, 62 S.E. 420; Walker v ... Venters, 148 N.C. 389, 62 S.E ... ...
-
Wilson v. Scarboro
...143 N.C. 97, 55 S.E. 417; Evans v. Freeman, 142 N.C. 61, 54 S.E. 847; Walker v. Venters, 148 N.C. 388, 62 S.E. 510; Basnight v. Jobbing Co., 148 N.C. 350, 62 S.E. 420; Woodson v. Beck, 151 N.C. 144, 65 S.E. 751, 31 L. A. (N. S.) 235. But the evidence admitted in our case does not fall withi......
-
A.B. Farquhar Co. v. Hardy Hardware Co.
... ... Maness, 102 N.C. 457, 9 S.E. 399; Cobb v ... Clegg, 137 N.C. 153, 49 S.E. 80; Basnight v ... Jobbing Co., 148 N.C. 356, 62 S.E. 420; Walker v ... Venters, 148 N.C. 389, 62 S.E. 510; ... ...