Rawls v. White

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: FURCHES, J.
• Citation: Rawls v. White, 127 N. C. 17, 37 S. E. 68 (N.C. 1900)
• Decision Date: 09 October 1900
• Parties: RAWLS et ux. v. WHITE et al.

37 S.E. 68

127 N.C. 17

RAWLS et ux. v. WHITE et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

October 9, 1900

Appeal from superior court, Hertford county; Coble, Judge.

Action by J. B. Rawls and wife against T. J. White and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiffs appeal. Modified.

Where plaintiff introduces in evidence, and claims under, a receipt given for a note indorsed by her and her husband, in which receipt defendant agrees to pay off an obligation of the husband, and, after deducting accounts owing him by husband to pay back the balance, such plaintiff will be bound by all the terms of the receipt.

Winborne & Lawrence, for appellants.

Shepherd & Shepherd, for appellees.

FURCHES J.

The plaintiffs, J. B. Rawls and wife, Sarah Rawls, neither of whom could read or write, alleged: That the plaintiff J. B Rawls owed W. J. White a debt evidenced by note of $110, to secure the payment of which, on the 21st day of January 1892, the plaintiffs executed a mortgage on land belonging to the wife. This note was assigned to one Perry, and is called the "Perry Note." That on the 31st day of December 1895, the feme plaintiff was the owner of a note given by Jernigan and Tripp for land she inherited from an aunt. That on the said 31st day of December this note, for $210, was delivered to the defendant T. J. White by the plaintiff J. B. Rawls, and indorsed by him at the time of delivery, at which time the said White gave the said J. B. Rawls the following receipt: "I have this day received of J. B. Rawls a note given to him and his wife for their interest in their Kentucky property, dated September 7, 1895, given for the amount of $210, for which I hereby agree to pay off and take in a mortgage against him held by J. W. Perry Co., of Norfolk, Va.; said note given for $110, and transferred to him by W. J. White. I, after deducting the amount of said note, and what he may owe me for store account, agree to pay balance over to him. December 31st, 1895. [Signed] T. J. White.' This receipt the husband carried home and gave to his wife, and she told him to put it in the drawer. At the time this receipt was given, and the $210 note indorsed by the husband, the defendant T. J. White told J. B. Rawls to tell his wife to come down and indorse the note, so he could collect it. The husband delivered this message to his wife, who went to the defendant's store the next day, or the day following, and indorsed the note by making her mark to her name. We hear nothing more of this transaction until a short time before this action was commenced, when the defendants advertised the land mortgaged to secure the $110, or the Perry note, when the plaintiffs commenced this action to enjoin the sale, alleging that the defendant T. J. White had collected the said $210 and paid off the Perry note out of the proceeds thereof, and also to recover the balance left of the $210 note after satisfying the Perry note. The feme plaintiff alleged that the $210 was her property, given for the purchase of her land, and that the defendant knew this; that neither she nor her husband could read or write, and the defendant knew this. And she alleges that she gave the note to her husband to deposit with the defendant White to collect and pay off the Perry note; that she could not and did not read the receipt brought home by her husband, and supposed it properly stated the conditions upon which said note was delivered to the defendant, and, as above stated, until her land was advertised for sale to satisfy the Perry debt. She also alleges that when she indorsed the $210 note she said to White that whatever remained after paying the Perry debt was to be paid to her, and that the defendant White agreed to this. The defendant White in his answer admitted that he knew the $210 note was given for land belonging to the feme plaintiff, and that he knew that she could neither read nor write. But he denied that he made any contract with the feme plaintiff at the time she indorsed the note, or at any other time, and insisted that he had the right to apply the...