Chastain v. Coward

• Citation: 79 N.C. 543
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decision Date: 30 June 1878
• Parties: E. C. CHASTAIN v. NATHAN COWARD.

79 N.C. 543

E. C. CHASTAIN

v.NATHAN COWARD.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1878.

CIVIL ACTION tried at Fall Term, 1877, of JACKSON Superior Court, before Furches, J.

By consent of parties a jury trial was waived and His Honor found the following facts: In the year 1872 or '73, the plaintiff agreed to sell defendant a tract of land in Jackson county for $2300; and in 1872 the defendant contracted to sell to one J. G. Chastain and others a tract of land in Clay county, and executed to them a bond for title, they paying part cash and giving their notes for the balance of the purchase money, and upon failure to pay the notes, the defendant recovered judgment against them at Fall Term, 1874, of said Court for the amount due thereon, and a decree for the land to be sold for its payment.

The agreement between plaintiff and defendant as aforesaid was not reduced to writing until the 10th of March, 1875, and upon entering into settlement of the balance due the plaintiff, the defendant having previously paid a part of the price, it was ascertained that it was about the same amount as that recovered in the judgment in favor of defendant against said J. G. Chastain and others. And thereupon the defendant made an assignment of said judgment to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff executed to him a bond for title to the land in Jackson county, and from that time took control of the judgment against said parties, and after indulging them for some time, he directed the sheriff of Clay county to sell the land for its payment, attended the sale and bought the land at $100. one Thomas Chastain being present and forbidding the sale under a claim of title in himself. It was in evidence that the land unincumbered was worth about $1,500, and that doubts as to the title prevented it from bringing a better price at the sale. The testimony as to the value of the land was objected to by plaintiff, and the objection overruled. The plaintiff now claims title to the land in Clay county.

Upon these facts it was contended by the plaintiff that the assignment of the 10th of March as aforesaid, was only for the proceeds or what might be recovered on said judgment, and insisted that the defendant owed him a balance upon their original contract and demanded judgment in this action for the same; but the defendant insisted that the plaintiff took the assignment of the judgment in full satisfaction of the balance due him for the land in Jackson county; and...