Williams v. Whiting
Decision Date | 28 February 1885 |
Citation | 92 N.C. 683 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | WILLIAMS, BLACK & CO. v. MARY A. WHITING. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
CIVIL
ACTION, heard upon exceptions to the report of a referee, before Gudger, Judge, at Fall Term, 1884, of EDGECOMBE Superior Court.
There was judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appealed.
Messrs. Connor & Woodard, for the plaintiffs .
Messrs. Jos. J. Martin, David Bell and Walter Clark, for the defendant .
On January 2d, 1878, the plaintiffs constituting the party of the first part, and the defendant, the party of the second part, all residents of the city of New York, entered into an agreement under their several seals, wherein the former, in consideration of thirty-six thousand dollars to be paid, as thereinafter mentioned, covenant to convey to the latter all their right, title, and interest, in a large and valuable plantation in the county of Edgecombe, described by metes and bounds, lying on the side of the track of the Wilmington and Weldon Railroad, and estimated to contain eleven hundred and five and one-half acres, and also certain articles of personal property, and such others as were then on the land.
The defendant covenants on her part, “to pay to the plaintiffs the said sum of thirty-six thousand dollars and interest, as evidenced by certain promissory notes of even date therewith as follows: Four thousand dollars, and interest thereon from date, on the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight; four thousand dollars, and interest thereon from date, on the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine; four thousand dollars, and interest thereon from date, on the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eighty; four thousand dollars, and interest thereon from date, on the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one; five thousand dollars, and interest thereon from date, on the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two; seven thousand five hundred dollars, and interest thereon from date, on the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four.”
The plaintiffs allege in their complaint that there remains unpaid a large sum due upon the first five notes, stated to be $13,776 99/100, with interest at the stipulated rate of seven per cent. from January 22d, 1883; while they have on hand seventy-eight bales of cotton of the estimated value of $2,964.00, the proceeds of which, when sold, are to be applied in reduction of the sum stated; and that nothing has been paid on the other notes.
The plaintiffs demand judgment for what is due upon the notes, and a sale of the land for the satisfaction of the indebtedness. The answer does not controvert the allegations of the making the contract and executing the notes contained in the complaint, but avers that many payments have been made;...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Murphy v. Smith
...343, 14 S.E. 920; Blalock v. Kernersville Mfg. Co., 110 N.C. 99, 14 S.E. 501; Scroggs v. Stevenson, 100 N.C. 354, 6 S.E. 111; Williams v. Whiting, 92 N.C. 683. The assignment of error, based upon exception No. 8, to finding of fact No. 16 made by the referee is likewise untenable, for that:......
-
State v. Wilson
... ... the evidence in his statement of the case, and showing ... therefrom that there was none on that point. Williams v ... Whiting, 92 N.C. 683; Falkner v. Thompson, 112 ... N.C. 455, 16 S.E. 852. He did not do that, but the solicitor, ... in accepting the ... ...
-
James v. Western N.C.R. Co.
... ... Wilson (at this term) 28 ... S.E. 416, Patterson v. Mills (at this term) 28 S.E. 368, and ... in many previous cases, among them Williams v ... Whiting, 92 N.C. 683, Walker v. Scott, 106 N.C ... 56, 60, 11 S.E. 364, and Merrill v. Whitmire, 110 ... N.C. 367, 15 S.E. 3. In the ... ...
-
Stephens v. Jno. L. Roper Lumber Co.
...plaintiff recovery thereon. Bank v. Hay, 143 N.C. 326, 55 S.E. 811; Williams and Wife v. Johnston, 92 N.C. 532, 53 Am. Rep. 428; Williams v. Whiting, 92 N.C. 683; Bank Armstrong, 152 U.S. 346, 14 S.Ct. 572, 38 L.Ed. 470; Bank of Macon v. Nelson, 38 Ga. 391, 95 Am. Dec. 400; Craig Silver Co.......