Tarkington v. Criffield

• Decision Date: 10 September 1924
• Docket Number: 21.
• Citation: 124 S.E. 129,188 N.C. 140
• Parties: TARKINGTON v. CRIFFIELD ET AL.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

124 S.E. 129

188 N.C. 140

TARKINGTON v. CRIFFIELD ET AL.

No. 21.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

September 10, 1924

Appeal from Superior Court, Beaufort County; Brown, Judge.

Consolidated actions by U. W. Tarkington against R. H. Criffield and others, instituted before a justice of the peace. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. New trial granted.

In an action against a landlord for goods furnished his tenants where the testimony left is uncertain whether a restriction on the amount for which landlord agreed to be responsible applied to goods supplied on written orders, the question was for the jury.

Three civil causes instituted before justice of the peace consolidated by consent.

The first was a suit by plaintiff, a merchant, against Criffield a farmer, and Nathan Arthur, one of his tenants, for $149.66 for supplies, money, etc., advanced by plaintiff to said tenant for the year 1920.

Second suit by plaintiff against Criffield and Charles Evans another tenant, for $45.49 for similar advancements for 1920.

Third, suit by plaintiff against Criffield on written orders of the latter for goods supplied to these two tenants during same year; this last not being disputed.

On the liability of defendant Criffield the following issue was submitted: "Is defendant indebted to plaintiff, and, if so, in what amount?"

Plaintiff, testifying in his own behalf, among other things said: That, in the early part of 1920, defendant Criffield came to witness and told him to let Nathan Arthur and Charles Evans, two of his tenants for that year, have goods, supplies, etc., and he would be responsible for same to amount not to exceed $150 for Arthur and $50 for Evans; that plaintiff advanced to said parties on this assurance the amounts claimed as above stated, and that he would not have trusted either of the men for these sales, but sold them on the promise of Criffield as stated; that plaintiff, during said year, also advanced to these same tenants goods, supplies, and money to the amount of $90, this being on written orders of defendant Criffield.

The defendant Criffield in his evidence denied the assurance and promise claimed by plaintiff in reference to first two suits, and stated that he told plaintiff that the witness would be liable only for goods advanced to these men on his written order; that plaintiff let them have goods on such orders to the amount of $90 and this was all that defendant was liable for or had promised to pay for; that he had tried to pay this amount to plaintiff, who had refused to take it, and defendant could do nothing further, but did not deny owing the $90.

The court charged the jury in effect that if defendant, before the...