F. S. Royster Guano Co v. Marks
Decision Date | 12 April 1904 |
Citation | 135 N.C. 59,47 S.E. 127 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | F. S. ROYSTER GUANO CO. v. MARKS. |
NOTES—ACTION—PAYMENT—EVIDENCE — QUESTION FOB JURY.
1. Where, in an action on notes, their execution is admitted, the burden of showing payment is on defendant.
¶ 1. See Bills and Notes, vol. 7, Cent. Dig. § 1695.
2. In an action on three notes, each for $100, defendant offered in evidence receipts, dated after the maturity of the notes, but which did not show what the payments were for. There was no evidence of any other indebtedness between the parties. Held that, as they tended to show payment upon the notes, they should have been admitted, without putting the defendant on further proof that the credits were not made as part payments on other debts of the defendant, if such existed.
3. In an action on notes, where defendant introduced receipts in evidence given by plaintiff after maturity of the notes, the question whether the evidence showed a mutilation of the receipts should have been submitted to the jury, that they might pass upon the fact whether the amounts mentioned in the receipts should have been credited on the notes.
Appeal from Superior Court, Stanly Coun ty; Neal, Judge.
Suit by the F. S. Royster Guano Company against W. A. Marks. Judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Z. B. Sanders, for appellant.
R. L. Smith and R. E. Austin, for appellee.
This action was a consolidation of two appeals by the plaintiff from two judgments of a justice of the peace. On the trial below, the plaintiff introduced in evidence three promissory notes executed by the defendant to the plaintiff on the 10th April, 1900, each in the sum of $100, and payable one day after date. The defendant admitted the execution of the notes, and offered In evidence a receipt in the nature of a letter written from Norfolk, Va., to him by the plaintiff, dated on the 19th November, 1900, in the following words and figures: "We beg to acknowledge the receipt of yours of 19th enclosing check for $103 for which you will please accept our thanks"—and also another receipt by way of letter in the precise words and figures of the first, except that it was dated November 26th, and referred to the receipt of the $100 check as having been sent by the defendant on the 24th. It appears from the record that the plaintiff objected to those receipts, but it does not appear upon what grounds; and his honor then remarked that; he would permit the defendant to tender these receipts, and see if he would make them competent later on by showing what debts those remittances were...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lassiter v. Powell
...compromise, and that the burden is on the defendant to establish it. Swan v. Carawan, 168 N.C. 472, 84 S.E. 699; F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Marks, 135 N.C. 59, 47 S.E. 127. The defendant offered some evidence that negotiations with regard to the matter took place between him and Medford pri......
-
Geitner v. Jones
... ... The ... defendants having pleaded payment, the burden of the plea was ... on them. Guano Co. v. Marks, 135 N.C. 59, 47 S.E ... 127. If the trusts had been satisfied and the debts paid, ... ...
-
Bank Of Brunswick v. Thompson
...on him who asserts it. Zachary v. Phillips, 101 N. C. 571, 8 S. E. 359; McBrayer v. Haynes, 132 N. C. 610, 44 S. E. 115; Guano Co. v. Marks, 135 N. C. 59, 47 S. E. 127. When one has a deposit in bank, it is held subject to his order, and the bank assumes the responsibility for the erroneous......
-
Bank of Brunswick v. Thompson
... ... Phillips, 101 ... N.C. 571, 8 S.E. 359; McBrayer v. Haynes, 132 N.C ... 610, 44 S.E. 115; Guano Co. v. Marks, 135 N.C. 59, ... 47 S.E. 127 ... When ... one has a deposit in ... ...