Winborne v. McMahan
Decision Date | 28 February 1934 |
Docket Number | 130. |
Citation | 173 S.E. 278,206 N.C. 30 |
Parties | WINBORNE v. McMAHAN. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, McDowell County; Schenck, Judge.
Civil action by J. W. Winborne against Eva H. McMahan administratrix of W. H. McMahan, deceased. From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
W. H McMahan died intestate on the 9th day of January, 1931, and his wife, Mrs. Eva H. McMahan, was duly appointed and qualified as administratrix of his estate. The plaintiff alleged that on the 20th day of February, 1929, he was the owner of twelve shares of the common capital stock of the Blanton Feed Company, a corporation doing business in McDowell county, and that on said date he sold said stock to the deceased, W. H. McMahan, for the sum of $1,200; that said deceased failed and neglected to pay for said stock prior to his death; and that in due time the plaintiff filed a claim with the defendant for said sum. Upon denial of liability this suit was instituted against the estate. The defendant filed an answer denying the vital allegations in the complaint.
At the trial of the action J. W. Pless testified that he was a former law partner of the plaintiff and that there had been certain preliminary negotiations between the deceased McMahan, and the plaintiff and the witness with respect to the sale of said stock. The witness said that the deceased The vice president and cashier of the bank testified that in February, 1929, the bank held twelve shares of the capital stock of the Blanton Feed Company issued to J. W. Winborne, and that the stock was held as collateral for indebtedness to the bank. All said certificates were signed in blank by the stockholders. The witness further testified that after the 20th of February, 1929, that he had a conversation with the deceased Mr. McMahan and that This witness further testified that after the death of Mr. McMahan, that there was a director's meeting at the bank and that Mr. E. H. McMahan came to the meeting and in going over the affairs of the estate said "that the estate owed Mr. Pless and Mr. Winborne $3,000 *** for a contract entered into between W. H. McMahan and Mr. Pless and Mr. Winborne." This witness further testified that the deceased, prior to his death, in discussing his business affairs referring to the stock of the Blanton Feed Company,
The president of the bank testified that Mr. E. H. McMahan
The plaintiff testified that in February, 1929, following the conference between the witness and Mr. Pless and the deceased that he went to the bank and told the vice president and cashier that he had sold the stock and instructed him "to deliver the stock on the payment of the purchase price." Witness further testified that he had filed a claim for $1,200 against the estate, and that Mr. E. H. McMahan had written a letter to the effect that the estate would not pay the claim.
Mr. E. H. McMahan, attorney at law, and son of deceased, testified that he had never acknowledged the validity of the claim of the plaintiff against the estate, and that he had never stated to the plaintiff that the estate would vote the stock issued to the plaintiff in a stockholders' or directors' meeting. The testimony of defendant tended to show that the deceased had never purchased the stock but was merely negotiating with the plaintiff and that no stock had ever been delivered to the deceased in his lifetime by the plaintiff, and that consequently the estate was not liable.
Two issues were submitted by the court, as follows:
(1) "Did the defendant's intestate, W. H. McMahan, contract with the plaintiff, J. W. Winborne, to purchase the twelve shares of stock of Blanton Feed Company owned by him (Winborne), as alleged in the complaint?"
(2) "What amount, if anything, is the defendant indebted to the plaintiff?"
The jury answered the first issue "Yes," and the second issue "$1,200.00 with interest."
From judgment upon the verdict, the defendant appealed.
Guy Weaver, of Asheville, and Edward H. McMahan, of Morganton, for appellant.
Robt. W. Proctor and J. W. Pless, Jr., both of Marion, for appellee.
The exceptions and assignments of error present...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. Morgan
... ... to a nonsuit, as one tenant in common owning only an ... undivided interest in land can maintain action against a ... trespasser. Winborne v. Elizabeth City Lumber Co., ... 130 N.C. 32, 40 S.E. 825 ... The ... grant of 1853 was for a tract of land lying and being in ... declarations against interest, and in delimitation of ... plaintiffs' present claim. Winborne v. McMahan, ... 206 N.C. 30, 173 S.E. 278; Burlington Hotel Corp. v ... Dixon, 196 N.C. 265, 145 S.E. 244; Morris v. Bogue ... Development Corp., 194 N.C ... ...