Rowland v. Rorke
| Decision Date | 30 June 1857 |
| Citation | 49 N.C. 337,4 Jones 337 |
| Parties | WILLIAM J. ROWLAND v. JOHN O. RORKE. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
A contract to make good certain notes on another, received in payment for property sold by plaintiff to the defendant, provided the maker of such notes was not good for them at a certain day thereafter, is not within the meaning of the statute for the suppression of fraud.
ACTION of ASSUMPSIT, tried before MANLY, Judge, at the Spring Term, 1857, of Wake Superior Court.
The plaintiff, in the month of January, 1852, sold a slave to the defendant, at the price of $670, to be paid in two bonds executed by E. P. Guion, and transferred without endorsement, amounting to the price above stated. Guion being considered in doubtful circumstances, the parties entered into a special agreement, which was as follows: At the request of the defendant, the plaintiff was not to sue Guion until six months, or thereabouts, had expired. At the end of that time, if the bonds were not paid, the plaintiff was to go to the defendant and inform him of the non-payment, and the defendant was then to give instructions as to what should be done with the bonds, and if the bonds were not good, the defendant was to make them good. Guion was apprised of the transfer of the bonds, and in a few days after the transfer, plaintiff called on him for the money, and received on them only a small sum. There was proof that, at the end of six months, the plaintiff went to the defendant and gave him information that the bonds were not paid, but it did not appear that, either at that time, or any other, the defendant gave the plaintiff any instructions what to do with them. The plaintiff, on the 15th of September of that year, brought suit against Guion on the bonds, and recovered judgment in February, 1853. Execution issued on this judgment, but no money was made, by reason of Guion's insolvency. It was proven that Guion was insolvent when the bonds were passed to the plaintiff, and continued so afterwards until the suit was brought; that before six months elapsed from the selling of the slave, all his property was conveyed, by deeds of trust, to secure others for amounts greatly beyond its value. The plaintiff proved a demand of the defendant before the bringing of this suit, and a refusal.
The Court charged the jury that the insolvency of Guion, and the inability of plaintiff to make the money out of him, would not sustain the action, unless, in addition thereto, the plaintiff went to the defendant at the end of six months, or thereabouts, for instructions; but if he did so, and Guion being insolvent, failed to pay, plaintiff was entitled to recover, unless the defendant gave instructions which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peele v. Powell
...good notes transferred in payment of property, as in Adcock v. Fleming, 19 N.C. 225, Ashford v. Robinson, 30 N.C. 114, and in Rowland v. Rorke, 49 N.C. 337, promise is valid, although in parol. If, however, the promise does not create an original obligation, and it is collateral, and is mer......
-
Kelly Handle Co. v. Crawford Plumbing & Mill Supply Co.
... ... Adcock v. Fleming, 19 N.C. 225, Ashford v ... Robinson, 30 N.C. 114, and in Rowland v. Rorke, ... 49 N.C. 337, the promise is valid although in parol. If, ... however, the promise does not create an original obligation, ... and it ... ...
- Winder v. Blake