Lee v. Knapp
| Decision Date | 28 February 1884 |
| Citation | 90 N.C. 171 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | G. H. LEE v. R. B. KNAPP and others. |
CIVIL ACTION tried at Spring Term, 1882, of DAVIDSON Superior Court, before Avery, J.
The plaintiff in his complaint alleged that the defendants R. B. Knapp, William Overaker and J. W. Lingenfelter were indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of eleven hundred and sixty-four dollars and fifteen cents, due by account, and promised to pay the same, and that said account is for goods sold and delivered to the defendants during the years 1879 and 1880, and that no part thereof had been paid, and demanded judgment for the amount alleged to be due and for costs, &c.
Summons was served upon the defendants by publication, and at the return term, no answer having been filed, judgment by default and inquiry was rendered against the defendants for the want of an answer, and at the spring term, 1882, a jury was empaneled to inquire of the damages.
The plaintiff introduced one Overaker, who testified that he bought the articles set out in the complaint as agent of the defendants, and they were worth the amount charged.
The defendants, upon cross-examination of this witness, proposed to show by him “that the defendants organized as the Thomasville Gold and Silver Mining Company, and afterwards bought the articles as an incorporated company, and stated that they offered to prove this with a view of showing that the plaintiff was only entitled to recover nominal damages. The plaintiff objected to the evidence, the objection was sustained, and defendants excepted.
The defendants proposed to show further, by the same witness, that the defendant Lingenfelter was president of the company incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania, and that the defendant Knapp was treasurer and secretary, and that they as officers on behalf of said company gave instructions to the witness to buy the goods, with the view of taking the position (if true) that the defendants were only liable for nominal damages. Objection by the plaintiff was sustained, and the defendants excepted.
The plaintiff then introduced as a witness his clerk, who had made out the account sued on, and who testified that it was correct, and the defendant Knapp, with the defendant Overaker, came into the store and told witness to let said Overaker have whatever he called for. Defendants' counsel then proposed to ask this witness “if he did not charge the articles in the books to the Eureka Mining Company, and if he did not understand that the articles were sold to the Eureka Mining Company when they were delivered--stating that the evidence was offered with the view (if true) of insisting that the plaintiff was only entitled to nominal damages.” Objection by the plaintiff was sustained by the court, and the defendants excepted.
There was a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed in the complaint. Judgment; appeal by defendants.
Messrs. M. H. Pinnix and J. M. McCorkle, for plaintiff .
Mr. W. H. Bailey, for defendants .
The exceptions taken by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n
...was entitled to judgment for nominal damages, at least, and to such substantial damages as he may have been able to prove. Lee v. Knapp, 90 N.C. 171; v. Moore, 86 N.C. 85. But "if the plaintiff's claim for damages is precise and fixed by an agreement of the parties, or can be rendered certa......
-
De Hoff v. Black
...has no right of action. Mitchell v. Express Co., 178 N.C. 235, 100 S.E. 307; Hollifield v. Tel. Co., 172 N.C. 714, 90 S.E. 996; Lee v. Knapp, 90 N.C. 171; Garrard v. Dollar, 49 N.C. 176, 67 Am. Dec. 271; R. C. L. 667. A judgment by default final as authorized by C. S. § 595, as amended by P......
-
Hoff v. Black
...has no right of action. Mitchell v. Express Co., 178 N. C. 235, 100 S. E. 307; Hollifield v. Tel. Co., 172 N.C. 714, 90 S. E. 996; Lee v. Knapp, 90 N. C. 171; Garrard v. Dollar, 49 N. C. 176, 67 Am. Dec. 271; 15 R. C. L. 667. A judgment by default final as authorized by C. S. § 595, as amen......
-
Hall v. McConey
... ... tending to avoid it, or to show that no right of action ... exists. Phillips v. Bachelder, 47 Mo.App. 52; 1 ... Black on Judgments (2 Ed.), 91; Girard v. Dollar, 49 ... N.C. 175; Foster v. Smith, 10 Wend. (N.Y.) 377; ... Lambert v. Sanford, 55 Conn. 437; Lee v ... Knapp, 90 N.C. 171. (6) Judgment taken by default is ... conclusive in respect to all such matters and facts as were ... well pleaded. Such issues cannot be relitigated in any ... subsequent action by parties or their privies. 1 Black on ... Judgments (2 Ed.), 87; Lenhard v. Simpson, 2nd Bidg. N ... ...