Matthews v. Smith

• Decision Date: 30 June 1872
• Citation: Matthews v. Smith, 67 N.C. 374 (N.C. 1872)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: JOHN W. MATTHEWS v. W. D. SMITH.

67 N.C. 374

JOHN W. MATTHEWS

v.W. D. SMITH.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1872.

Where a person purchased a worthless article as a fertilizer, and gave his note for the purchase money, and afterwards paid the same, with a full knowledge of the facts; it was held, that he could not recover the money paid, although paid under threats of a law suit.

It is error in a Judge to leave a case to the jury upon a hypothetical state of facts, unwarranted by the evidence.

Civil action, to recover money had and received to use of plaintiff, tried before Buxton, J., Spring Term, 1872, of CUMBERLAND Superior Court.

Plaintiff testified, that he went to the defendant's store in Fayetteville, to examine an article which defendant had advertised as “Phœnix Guano;” that defendant recommended it highly as a fertilizer, and said that it was superior to the Peruvian, in many respects. Upon these representations he bought 2,228 pounds, and gave a note with sureties to secure the price; that he applied the ““Phœnix Guano” to a part of his crop; that the land was well cultivated, and that the Guano was absolutely worthless, and injured the land; that he told defendant the result of his experiment, and asked him to bring a friendly suit to test his right to recover. He declined, and said he would sue unless plaintiff paid him; that the Phœnix contained all the qualities which he had recommended; that it had been analyzed by a chemist, and that he could show by other persons that it did good. Plaintiff said he was forced to pay, to relieve his sureties, and told defendant that if he failed in a suit which he had brought against other parties upon a similar claim, he, plaintiff, would sue him to get back his money.

Another witness testified as to the worthlessness of the article, and gave it as his opinion that it was of no value whatever.

The grounds of defence were: That the money was paid after a full knowledge of all the facts, and therefore plaintiff could not recover in this action. That although paid under a?? threat of a law suit, yet that plaintiff could not recover, as the money was paid under a mistake of legal liability.

His Honor charged the jury, that if a spurious article was sold to the plaintiff, as genuine guano with valuable fertilizing qualities, the plaintiff could not recover the price paid, if he paid the money with a full knowledge of all the facts, even though he paid it to relieve himself and his sureties from a...