Harvel's Inc. v. Eggleston, 455

• Decision Date: 02 November 1966
• Docket Number: No. 455,455
• Citation: 268 N.C. 388,150 S.E.2d 786
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: HARVEL'S, INC. v. Frank L. EGGLESTON.

Page 786

150 S.E.2d 786

268 N.C. 388

HARVEL'S, INC. v. Frank L. EGGLESTON.

No. 455.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 2, 1966.

Booe, Mitchell & Goodson, by William S. Mitchell, Winston-Salem, for plaintiff appellee.

Block, Meyland & Lloyd, by A. L. Meyland and Henry H. Isaacson, Greensboro, for defendant appellant.

SHARP, Justice.

The testimony of Mr. Harvel, plaintiff's president and manager, that defendant told him he had a monthly income of $32,500.00, and was well able to pay for the furniture he had ordered, was admitted over defendant's objection and exception. He assigns its admission as error, contending that Harvel's testimony, together with the cross-examination which resulted from defendant's contradiction of it, presented him to the jury as a rich man, able to indulge an extravagant daughter, and that such testimony was fatal to his defense.

Certainly, standing alone, evidence that an individual is financially able to make a specified purchase is not evidence tending to show that he made it. Ordinarily, a party's financial ability to respond in damages, or to pay an alleged debt, is totally irrelevant to the issue of liability; and the admission of evidence tending to establish such ability is held to be prejudicial, except in cases warranting an award of punitive damages. See Modern Electric Company v. Dennis, 259 N.C. 354, 130 S.E.2d 547; Edwards v. Southern States Finance Company, 196 N.C. 462, 146 S.E 89; Shepard v. W. T. Mason Lumber Co., 166 N.C. 130, 81 S.E. 1064. Here, however, the testimony that defendant told plaintiff he had a specified monthly income was not offered to establish defendant's financial worth. Defendant's production of his bankbook and representation that he had a monthly income of $32,500.00 was intended to induce plaintiff to extend him credit. The incident was an integral part of the negotiations which culminated in the contract in suit. Ordinary business prudence would have required plaintiff to ascertain defendant's financial condition before undertaking his commission to furnish Mrs. Carter's house according to her taste, and to make it a showplace. When defendant denied the contract upon which plaintiff sues, plaintiff was entitled to show the relevant circumstances and negotiations which resulted in the alleged agreement. Other evidence pertaining to defendant's financial worth was elicited without objection, and defendant testified that his annual income was less than $20,000.00.

Defendant also assigns as error the refusal of the court to strike testimony by Mrs. Carter that defendant, in April 1965, intended to marry Lucy and that he had told his daughter they would occupy a certain bedroom in the new house. Counsel's basis for the motion to strike the first statement was, 'How does she know what he intended?'--a question directed to the court. Mrs. Carter answered by saying that defendant had told her. The basis of the motion to strike the second statement was that it was not responsive to the question. Notwithstanding, defendant's denial that he ever told Mrs. Carter he was giving her a home and furnishing it for her made this evidence relevant to the inquiry. Furthermore, in view of the other testimony relating to Lucy and defendant's separation from his second wife which was admitted without objection, it cannot reasonably be asserted that these two items prejudiced defendant's defense. Mrs. Carter testified, without objection, that defendant was separated from his second wife, who had not been friendly with her; that he was going to marry Lucy who, along with defendant, had visited her for a week during the first of April when they had all been happy in the new house; and that his purpose in buying Mrs. Carter a house was to enable him and Lucy to visit her and all his grandchildren together. Mrs. Carter had seven children. Six by a former marriage were in the custody of her first husband. She also testified, without objection, that it was after defendant had given Lucy a 'Stingray' (Corvette automobile) that he gave her permission to buy the pool table for her husband. Defendant did object, however, to questions put to him on cross-examination which suggested that Lucy had expressed a desire for a Corvette when she saw one in front of plaintiff's store when she accompanied defendant on one of his trips there while plaintiff was furnishing the house. Defendant had denied many of the conversations which Mr. Harvel testified he had had with him, and he was indefinite as to the number of times he went to plaintiff's store. The questions with reference to the Corvette were an attempt by plaintiff's counsel to refresh defendant's recollection as to one of the visits he had made to plaintiff's store. The court was careful to instruct the jury...