Comm'rs of Iredell County v. Wasson

• Decision Date: 31 January 1880
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: COMMISSIONERS OF IREDELL COUNTY v. W. F. WASSON, Sheriff.

82 N.C. 308

COMMISSIONERS OF IREDELL COUNTY

v.W. F. WASSON, Sheriff.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January Term, 1880.

CIVIL ACTION tried at August Special Term, 1879, of IREDELL Superior Court, before Gudger, J.

The following are substantially the facts as shown by the record and statement of the case: The plaintiff declared upon a certificate of deposit, which is as follows, to wit: Bank of Statesville, No. 1,604. Statesville, N. C., May 10th, 1875. W. F. Wasson has deposited in this bank one thousand currency dollars, payable thirty days after notice is given R. F. Simonton, cashier, on the return of this certificate properly endorsed, with interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum, if left for twelve months.

(Signed) R. F. SIMONTON, Cashier.

The certificate was endorsed by W. F. Wasson in blank, and he was sued as endorser. The certificate was transferred by the defendant W. F. Wasson, who was sheriff of the county of Iredell, to C. A. Carlton, then the treasurer of the county, on a settlement in payment of the taxes due the county for which he was liable as sheriff; and it was afterwards turned over by Carlton to his successor in office as a part of the county funds. The defendant Wasson contended that he was not liable as an endorser of the certificate, for the reason that when he endorsed it in blank, it was understood between him and Carlton that he was not to be liable for the same. And there being some conflict of testimony on this point, the issue was submitted to the jury: “Was it the intention of the parties that Wasson was to be liable on the transfer of the certificate, or was it endorsed by Wasson only to transfer the title and enable the county to draw the money on it?”

It was in proof that the bank was considered good at the time of the transfer, and the certificate was the property of the county, and it was admitted that C. A. Carlton was treasurer of the county at the time, and that the certificate of deposit was a negotiable instrument. The plaintiff asked the court to instruct the jury,

1. That if they believed that the board of commissioners received said certificate with a blank endorsement thereon of defendant's name, for value and without notice of any understanding, if any, as to the nature of said endorsement, made between Carlton and Wasson, then defendant is liable.

2. That if the jury believe that Carlton took the certificate of deposit, relying on his ability to collect the same, and that he turned over said certificate to plaintiff in settlement of his indebtedness and without notice of any understanding between Carlton and Wasson, then defendant is liable and plaintiff is entitled to recover.

The court declined to give the instructions as prayed for, and charged the jury, “that if Carlton received the certificate as treasurer of Iredell county, and in payment of a debt due by Wasson to the county, his (Carlton's) act was the act of the county; that if defendant wrote his name across the back of the certificate of deposit, the law presumed that he intended to make himself responsible therefor, and that the burden was on the defendant to rebut this presumption raised by the law; that if he (Wasson) had satisfied them by a preponderance of testimony that at the time he endorsed the certificate, the contract between him and Carlton was, that he was not to be liable and that his endorsement was to pass the title only, then they should find the issue in favor of the defendant; but if they were not so satisfied, they should find the issue in favor of the plaintiff.”

The plaintiff excepted to the instructions, and the jury found the issue in favor of the defendant, Wasson, and that he was not liable for the certificate of deposit. No defence having been set up by the other defendants, judgment was rendered against them and in favor of the...