Sutton v. Robeson
| Citation | 9 Ired. 380,31 N.C. 380 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1849 |
| Parties | JOHN G. SUTTON v. HARDY ROBESON. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
An offer to compomise is not evidence to charge the party on the original cause of action. But a concluded agreement of compromise must, in its nature, be as obligatory, in all respects, as any other, and either party may use it, whenever its stipulations or statements of facts become material evidence for him.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Bladen County, at the Spring Term 1849, his Honor Judge CALDWELL presiding.
This is an action of debt on a former judgment, brought against the executor of Henry Robeson, deceased. Plea, payment by the testator.
On the trial, the defendant gave evidence, tending to prove that the testator had paid the judgment. In order to rebut that inference, the plaintiff offered in evidence, a written instrument, signed and sealed by the defendant, in the following words:
“Whereas there are several suits now pending in the Superior Court of law of Bladen County, wherein John G. Sutton is plaintiff and I am defendant, and the same have been settled between the said Sutton and myself: This may certify, that in consideration that the said Sutton will not attempt to receive the full amounts claimed by him in the said suits, I hereby agree with the said Sutton, that, in all the said suits, judgments for seven eighths of the amounts or sums claimed by said Sutton may be entered against me and for all costs; and the said Sutton agrees, that the said judgments for seven eighths shall be in full discharge of the whole amounts claimed.”
To the admissibility of the instrument the defendant objected on several grounds. First, because, at a former term the plaintiff obtained a rule on the defendant to show cause why judgment should not be entered in this suit according to the agreement, and the same was afterwards discharged: which he contended was an adjudication against the validity of the said agreement. Secondly, that the agreement was obtained by fraud, and, if introduced, it would involve the trial of a collateral issue on that question. Thirdly, that it was a distinct cause for another action. The Court rejected the evidence, and a verdict was given for the defendant; and after judgment the plaintiff appealed.
Strange, for the plaintiff .
D. Reid, for the defendant .
The Court is of opinion, that the evidence was admissible. It was relevant to the issue, as an agreement to pay part of a debt affords some presumption, that the party had not before paid it in full; and it was for the jury to judge of the force of the presumption, according to the situation of the parties, the evidence of actual payment, and the circumstances attending the execution of the agreement. The objections taken to its reception, at the trial, are entirely insufficient. It was very proper to discharge the rule for judgment, which the plaintiff had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bohannon v. Trotman, 747.
...of deception, fraud or mistake.' This has always been the policy of this state borne out by numerous authorities: Sutton v. Robeson, 31 N.C. 380; Williams v. Alexander, 39 N.C. 207; Mayo v. Gardner, 49 N.C. 359; Barnawell v Threadgill, 56 N.C. 50, 58; York v. West-all, 143 N.C. 276, 55 S.E.......
-
Bohannon v. Trotman
... ... fraud or mistake.' This has always been the policy of ... this state borne out by numerous authorities: Sutton v ... Robeson, 31 N.C. 380; Williams v. Alexander, 39 ... N.C. 207; Mayo v. Gardner, 49 N.C. 359; ... Barnawell v. Threadgill, 56 N.C. 50, ... ...
-
Penn Dixie Lines, Inc. v. Grannick
...a compromise agreement is conclusive between the parties as to the matters compromised. Snyder v. Kenan Oil Co., supra; Sutton v. Robeson, 31 N.C. 380; 11 Am. Jur., Compromise and Settlement, section 25. But it does not extend to matters not included within its terms. 15 C.J.S., Compromise ......
-
Beauchamp v. Clark
...235 N.C. 119, 68 S.E.2d 805; Hinson v. Davis, 220 N.C. 380, 17 S.E.2d 348; Armstrong v. Polakavetz, 191 N.C. 731, 133 S.E. 16; Sutton v. Robeson, 31 N.C. 380; 11 Am.Jur., Compromise and Settlement, Sec. It will be noted that authority with respect to the subject matter of the compromise is ......