Butts v. Screws
| Decision Date | 31 October 1886 |
| Citation | 95 N.C. 215 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | GEO. F. BUTTS v. JOS. SCREWS. |
This was an action to recover a horse, cart and harness, tried before Connor, Judge, at April Term, 1886, of WAYNE Superior Court.
As ancillary to the action, the plaintiff, at the time of suing out the summons, obtained a requisition for the delivery of the property, issued to the Sheriff of Wayne county, who, in pursuance of said order, seized the said property and delivered the same to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff in his complaint alleged, that he was the owner and entitled to the immediate possession of one horse, cart and harness, and that the same was wrongfully detained by the defendant.
The defendant answered, and denied the allegation in the complaint, and demanded judgment that the property be returned to him, and that damages be awarded him for the wrongful taking and detention of the property.
The summons and requisition having been issued by a deputy of the Clerk, who had not been sworn, and it appearing that he had inadvertently omitted to sign the requisition, upon motion of the plaintiff, the Court, under objection by the defendant, allowed the party, who was present in Court, to affix his signature to the requisition. The defendant moved the Court to dismiss the action, and render judgment against the plaintiff for the re-delivery of the property to him. This motion the Court refused, and the defendant excepted.
The following issues were submitted to the jury:
1st. Is the plaintiff the owner and entitled to the possession of the property described in the complaint?
2d. Is the same wrongfully detained by the defendant?
George F. Butts, the plaintiff, testified in his own behalf:
I sold the horse and cart January, 1885, to the defendant for $100.00. He was to pay me in the Fall. He said that he might not be able to pay the whole of the price in the Fall. I told him to pay me what he could, and if he got along all right, I would wait for the balance. He paid me $40.00. The horse and cart were to be mine until the price was paid in full. The defendant moved off my land in the Fall, and I demanded the horse and cart. He refused to give them up. He owes me on the price $61.80. I retained the title until they were paid for. I did not sell the property on two years' time.
The defendant was then examined in his own behalf, and testified as follows:
The plaintiff said, “I will sell you the horse and cart on two years' time, and if we can agree, and you cannot pay the whole of the price at the end of two years, I will give you the third year.”
There was other evidence tending to sustain the defendant.
The defendant demanded judgment upon the testimony, because the conditional sale was not reduced to writing, as the statute required; that the condition was void and the title vested in the defendant absolutely.
The Court refused to render judgment as prayed for, and instructed the jury:
“That if, from the evidence, they believed that it was agreed between the parties at the time of making the contract, that the title to the horse and cart was to remain in the plaintiff until the purchase money was fully paid, and that it had not been so paid, they would find the issues in favor of the plaintiff, unless they believed from the evidence that there was an agreement that the property was to remain in the possession of the defendant until the time of credit had expired.”
To this charge the defendant excepted.
The jury found the issues for the plaintiff.
Whereupon the Court rendered judgment for the plaintiff for the possession of the property described in the complaint and for the costs, and the defendant appealed.
No counsel for the plaintiff.
Mr. Geo. M. Lindsay, for the defendant .
ASHE, J. (after stating the facts).
There are many cases in the reports of the decisions of this Court, where the Court has been called upon to put a construction upon instruments similar in terms to this contract, and it has been almost uniformly held, that they are evidences of conditional sales. To that effect is Clayton v. Hester, 80 N. C., 275; Ellison v. Jones, 4 Ired., 48; Ballard v. Sudderth, 10 Ired., 176; Vassar v. Buxton, 86 N. C., 335; Paris v. Roberts, 12 Ired., 268. The difference between this and those cases is, that this was a parol agreement, and the others were in writing, but it is nevertheless, according to the authorities, in its terms a conditional sale, and the defendant insisted that inasmuch as it was a conditional sale, the condition was void, the sale not having been reduced to writing and registered, as is required by §1275 of The Code. The section provides, that “all conditional sales of personal property, in which title...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. Cary Lumber Co
...prejudice. Cherry v. Canal Co., 140 N. C. 422, 53 S. E. 138, 111 Am. St. Rep. 850, where it is said, quoting from Ashe, J., in Butts v. Screws, 95 N. C. 215: "A new trial will not be granted when the action of the trial judge could, by no probability, injure the appellant." In this aspect o......
-
Stewart v. Cary Lumber Co.
... ... Cherry v. Canal ... Co., 140 N.C. 422, 53 S.E. 138, 111 Am. St. Rep. 850, ... where it is said, quoting from Ashe, J., in Butts v ... Screws, 95 N.C. 215: "A new trial will not be ... granted when the action of the trial judge could, by no ... probability, injure the ... ...
-
Brewer v. Ring
...is no cause of action, there are no damages. The ruling, if erroneous, was, for the reason just stated, without any prejudice. Butts v. Screws, 95 N.C. 215; State v. Smith, supra; Collins v. Collins, 125 98, 34 S.E. 195; May v. Gentry, 20 N.C. 249; Gray v. R. R. Co., supra. If erroneous, it......
-
Perry v. Southern Sur. Co.
...517, 112 S.E. 32; Lindsey v. Bank, 115 N.C. 553, 20 S.E. 621; Ewbank v. Lyman, 170 N.C. 505, 87 S.E. 348, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 272; Butts v. Screws, 95 N.C. 215; Cherry v. Co., 140 N.C. 422, 53 S.E. 138, 111 Am. St. Rep. 850, 6 Ann. Cas. 143; Shackelford v. Staton, 117 N.C. 73, 23 S.E. 101; Rie......