Debnam v. Rouse
| Decision Date | 07 October 1931 |
| Docket Number | 183. |
| Citation | 160 S.E. 471,201 N.C. 459 |
| Parties | DEBNAM et al. v. ROUSE. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Greene County; Devin, Judge.
Action by Winnie Barwick Debnam and husband against G. A. Rouse. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
No error.
Plaintiffs' evidence in action for share of newspaper profits held sufficient to take question of partnership between them and defendant to jury.
Supplementary Statement.
Named plaintiff testified that she and her husband entered into agreement with another to purchase newspaper; that defendant asked to be let in on deal; that plaintiffs were to have half interest in witness' name; that newspaper was sold under mortgage to defendant; that plaintiffs were to be silent partners with him; that he never paid any money in her presence, but that certain bills, to be paid from newspaper funds, were discussed in her presence; that they were to come out of settlement at end of year; and that defendant later gave her husband certain amount, while husband testified that he and wife had conversation with defendant regarding purchase of newspaper and formation of copartnership; that defendant asked to be let in on deal, stating that he would furnish necessary finances; that defendant accepted witness' proposition as to settlement between them; that witness collected some newspaper accounts, to be charged to his part of profits; that defendant gave him part of money received from county; that he put off settlement with various excuses; and that certain sum was due plaintiffs from net profits.
The issues submitted to the jury, and their answers thereto, were as follows:
John Hill Paylor, of Farmville, for appellant.
Walter G. Sheppard, of Farmville, for appellees.
The defendant, at the close of plaintiffs' evidence, made a motion in the court below for judgment as in case of nonsuit. C. S. § 567. The court below refused the motion, and in this we can see no error.
The defendant introduced evidence, but did not renew the motion to nonsuit at the close of all the evidence.
In Lee v. Penland, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kiziah
... ... submitted to the jury considered on appeal. Lee v ... Penland, 200 N.C. 340, 157 S.E. 31; Debnam v ... Rouse, 201 N.C. 459, 160 S.E. 471; Harrison v ... Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 207 N.C. 487, 177 S.E. 423 ... Section ... ...
-
Batson v. City Laundry Co.
... ... by Walker, J. Murphy v. Power Co., 196 N.C. at page ... 494, 146 S.E. 204; Lee v. Penland, 200 N.C. at page ... 341, 157 S.E. 31; Debnam v. Rouse, 201 N.C. 459, 160 ... S.E. 471 ... In ... Price v. Ins. Co., 200 N.C. at page 428, 157 S.E ... 132, 133, speaking ... ...
-
Barnes v. Teer
... ... and on appeal the Supreme Court can review only matters of ... law or legal inference. State v. Casey, 201 N.C ... 185, 159 S.E. 337; Debnam v. Rouse, 201 N.C. 459, ... 160 S.E. 471; Carter v. Mullinax, 201 N.C. 783, 161 ... S.E. 486; Woody Bros. Bakery v. Greensboro Life Ins ... Co., ... ...