Holding v. Daniel
| Decision Date | 17 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | 450. |
| Citation | 8 S.E.2d 249,217 N.C. 473 |
| Parties | HOLDING v. DANIEL. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
The plaintiff brought this action to recover one Dodge automobile which he alleged was his property and wrongfully detained by the defendant. The defendant denied the ownership of the plaintiff and alleged that his possession of the automobile was lawful by reason of the fact that he had loaned to a partnership, composed of T. E. Holding and H. S. Satterwhite $300, for which Satterwhite, the partner and business manager, had executed and delivered to the defendant a promissory note, and had executed a chattel mortgage on the Dodge coupe in question, and delivered the automobile into the possession of the defendant, authorizing and instructing him to retain possession thereof, which possession was continued until the time it was seized by the plaintiff in this action under claim and delivery proceedings.
The defendant further set up as a counterclaim the said debt and interest thereon, which he alleged the plaintiff had repeatedly acknowledged and promised to pay.
The plaintiff replied to the answer, denying that there was any partnership between himself and Satterwhite and admitting only that Satterwhite was the business manager, with authority to buy, trade, and sell automobiles, and to pay for automobiles out of proceeds of sale and capital furnished by the plaintiff, and denying that Satterwhite had any other authority, and specifically averring that he had no authority to execute notes or chattel mortgages, or to pledge or mortgage the property of the plaintiff.
The defendant filed an amended answer, in which he admitted that Satterwhite was only the agent and general manager in charge of the automobile business owned and operated by the plaintiff, but reaffirming the statement that as such manager he had borrowed the money, executed the promissory note,--evidence of the loan,-- and executed and delivered a chattel mortgage on the automobile sought to be recovered by the plaintiff; further alleging that the money was, in fact used in the business of the plaintiff and that plaintiff had ratified the actions of the defendant.
Holding testified that the automobile was his, and that after he had obtained title and possession to it, it was driven out on the road by Mr. Satterwhite and left there, and Mr. Daniel "pulled it in to his house", thus acquiring possession of it. He further testified that Satterwhite was only manager of his business, without authority to sign any notes and papers, and more specifically without any authority to manage any of his property or sign a mortgage therefor.
The evidence tends to show further that Satterwhite had drawn a check for $650 to pay the balance due the Sales Company on a car, which check was returned unpaid by the bank; that he secured time from the local bank to get up money to take up the check, which he borrowed from the defendant Daniel and another person, executing to Daniel...
To continue reading
Request your trial