Blackwell v. Willard

Decision Date30 June 1871
Citation6 Am.Rep. 749,65 N.C. 555
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesJ. M. BLACKWELL et al v. W. H. WILLARD et al.
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Contracts existing between citizens and residents of the northern States and citizens of this State, prior to the commencement of the late war, were suspended during the existence of hostilities.

Where a citizen and resident of New York had a suit pending in this State previous to the late war, and during the war his debtor here pays up his indebtedness to the attorney or agent of such non-resident: Held, that such action was void, and that the relation of attorney and client was terminated by the war.

Any securities held by a citizen and resident of New York previous to the late war, upon persons resident in this State, could not be extinguished durante bello, either through the agency of the Courts here, or through the former agents and attorneys of such non-resident.

Therefore, where a debtor to a citizen or resident of New York paid off said claim to a Clerk and Master here in Confederate currency before such currency had depreciated to any extent, such payment is a nullity.

Civil action tried before Jones, J., at Spring Term, 1871, of BEAUFORT Superior Court.

The facts of this case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the Court.

Fowle, for plaintiff .

Warren & Carter, for defendants .

DICK, J.

Every material allegation in the complaint, not controverted by the answer, shall for the purposes of the action be taken as true. C. C. P. sec. 137.

All the allegations in the complaint which are admitted in the answer, are considered as part of the answer in determining the matters in controversy.

In this case there is a demurrer to the answer, and we have to consider, whether the facts thus admitted, are sufficient to determine the rights of the parties.

Certain property belonging to the plaintiffs, was sold under a decree of the Court of Equity for Beaufort County, made at Spring Term, 1860. The sale was made by John A. Stanly, Clerk and Master of said Court; and the defendant, William H. Willard, became the purchaser of part of said property, and executed the four notes with the sureties as set forth in the pleadings. The sale was made on the 8th day of November, 1860, and the notes were payable at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months from that date. The sale was duly confirmed by said Court of Equity, and the Master was directed to collect the purchase money, when due, and hold the same subject to the order of Court.

At the Fall Term, 1861, the following order was made:

“In this cause, it is ordered by the Court, that the Master suspend the collection of the purchase money, as long as in his opinion the same continues solvent, with authority to receive payment of such bonds as the makers thereof may desire to pay.”

The first note was paid by the defendant, Willard, to John A. Stanly, Clerk and Master, on the 2d day of January, 1862, by a check on the Bank of Cape Fear; and the other notes were paid at subsequent periods in that year, in currency, which had not materially depreciated.

It is also admitted, that said payments were made in good faith, and without any intention to defraud the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs at the time of the sale of said property, and the collection of said notes, were citizens and residents of the State of New York; and said payments were received by the Clerk and Master, without their consent. The said suit in Equity, was pending at the commencement of the late war; and ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Erickson v. Starling
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • June 11, 1952
    ...v. French, supra; Long v. Oxford, 108 N.C. 280, 13 S.E. 112; Foy v. Haughton, 83 N.C. 467; Lee v. Beaman, 73 N.C. 410; Blackwell v. Willard, 65 N.C. 555, 6 Am.Rep. 749. Indeed, it provides in express terms that where an answer contains several separate affirmative defenses, the plaintiff 'm......
  • Re Roeck's Estate
    • United States
    • Surrogate's Court (US)
    • January 1, 1922
    ...in other states, but strange to say always upon the opinions referred to. Seymour v. Bailey, 66 Ill. 288, 301; Blackwell v. WillardUNK, 65 N.C. 555, 6 Am. Rep. 749; Evan's Appeal, 51 Conn. 435, 439; Louisville and N.R. Co. v. BucknerUNK, 8 Bush (Ky.) 277, 282, 8 Am. Rep. 462. It has never b......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT