Pearce v. Mason

• Decision Date: 31 January 1878
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: WILLIAM H. PEARCE v. LUKE MASON.

78 N.C. 37

WILLIAM H. PEARCE

v.LUKE MASON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January Term, 1878.

CIVIL ACTION, tried at Fall Term, 1877, of CRAVEN Superior Court, before Eure, J.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant entered into possession of a certain lot in the City of New Berne under a contract of purchase with Mrs. Mary Chadwick, who agreed upon the payment of a certain sum of money to execute a deed for the same; that if the payment was not made as stipulated in the contract, then it should be null and void; that Mrs. Chadwick subsequently conveyed to the plaintiff; and that the defendant had failed to pay any part of the purchase money. Wherefore the plaintiff demanded judgment for the amount of the notes given by the defendant to Mrs. Chadwick for the purchase of the land.

In his answer the defendant, after admitting the execution of the notes, alleged that in pursuance of an agreement in writing between the plaintiff and himself, the plaintiff bought the lot of Mrs. Chadwick and took an assignment of the notes and agreed that defendant might carry on the business of carriage making, &c., on the lot, and with the profits arising therefrom, pay off said notes and get a deed; that he had previously paid a part of the purchase money to Mrs. Chadwick, and that the plaintiff had received from him a considerable sum in work done for the plaintiff; that the lot had increased in value by reason of improvements, and that he had paid more than the purchase money, and demanded judgment for the excess.

The plaintiff replied and denied the averments of the defendant, and alleged that he did purchase the lot of Mrs. Chadwick, but not in pursuance of any agreement with defendant, and that no such agreement was ever made between them.

Upon the issues submitted to the jury, it was found that the plaintiff was the owner of the notes which were given for the purchase of the land described in the complaint, and that defendant had paid plaintiff on said notes, the sum of $650 of which sum $100 was for work done for plaintiff. Thereupon the Court gave judgment for plaintiff for $1319,78, balance due upon the notes, and appointed a commissioner to sell the premises and apply the proceeds to the payment of the judgment, &c., from which the defendant appealed.

Messrs. Green & Stevenson, for plaintiff .

Messrs. Battle & Mordecai and W. J. Clarke, for defendant .

RODMAN, J.

This is a case which has been so obscured by bad pleading and careless procedure, on both sides, as to make it extremely difficult to be dealt with, without danger of doing injustice to one or the other of the parties. A simple question of fact, which appears to be the only question about which the parties really differ, has been unnecessarily complicated with a perplexing question of practice. In such a case, where there are no decisive precedents or rules, and the equity of neither party clearly appears, all that we can do, is, so to order, that as far as we can effect it, no injustice shall be done to either party; and if we happen to fail in this purpose, the blame must fall not upon us whom the parties have united to mystify and befog, but on the parties whose neglect of the rules of pleading and procedure has produced the difficulty.

The motion is to arrest or set aside the judgment on the ground that it is not warranted by the complaint. The complaint states that Mrs. Chadwick agreed to sell to defendant a certain piece of land, and took his notes for the price, and that she afterwards conveyed the land to the plaintiff. It does not say that she assigned the notes to the plaintiff, yet it demands a judgment for the amount of the notes. The complaint was demurrable, and would not authorize the judgment demanded or that which was given.

The detendant however answers and carefully alleges that the notes were assigned to the plaintiff, thus supplying the plaintiff's omission and giving him a good cause of action. The defendant also says he has paid the notes, and in a schedule attached to his answer, states many partial...