Commercial Finance Co. v. Culler
| Decision Date | 06 January 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 744,744 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | COMMERCIAL FINANCE CO. v. CULLER et al. |
William S. Mitchell, Winston-Salem, for plaintiff, appellee.
Eugene H. Phillips, Winston-Salem, for defendant, appellant.
A compulsory reference is not authorized on the ground that the trial requires the examination of long accounts in an action instituted to recover on a promissory note or an account where the receipt of each and every payment alleged to have been made thereon is admitted. Coin Machine Acceptance Corp. v. Pillman, 235 N.C. 295, 69 S.E.2d 563; Lee v. Thornton, 176 N.C. 208, 97 S.E. 23; Peyton v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co., 167 N.C. 280, 83 S.E. 487; Hall v. Craige, 65 N.C. 51. Where numerous payments on an indebtedness have been made, the case involves only a matter of computation of figures and has none of the elements of a long account with charges and discharges, as contemplated in the statute which provides for a compulsory reference. Hall v. Craige, supra.
It is true that by reason of the counterclaims for usury and damages as set forth in the pleadings, this action is somewhat complicated, but these additional matters do not raise questions which may be referred under an order of compulsory reference within the purview of G.S. § 1-189.
The order of compulsory reference entered below is set aside and the cause remanded for trial by jury unless otherwise disposed of by consent of the parties.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Long v. Honeycutt
...Rubber Mfg. Co. v. Horn, 203 N.C. 732, 167 S.E. 42; Murchison Nat. Bank v. Evans, 191 N.C. 535, 132 S.E. 563. Commercial Finance Co. v. Culler, 236 N.C. 758, 73 S.E.2d 780, relied upon by defendant is clearly factually Defendant states in his brief that the court was in error 'when it refus......
- Jeffries v. Parker
- Davis v. Jenkins