From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Wood

Superior Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 1804
3 N.C. 332 (N.C. Super. 1804)

Opinion

(Fall Riding, 1804.)

Equity will reimburse a defendant at law, who, by judgment at law, has been compelled to pay too much; he not having had notice of the proceeding at law against him.

WOOD had obtained a judgment against Taylor as a collector, without giving him notice by motion for judgment in the county court, for a considerable sum more than was due, and enforced payment. Taylor sued him at law for a reimbursement, and obtained a verdict, but could not get judgment, because it was a suit to recover what had been recovered by judgment. He then sued in equity, stating in his bill all the circumstances; and the Court relieved him, and gave him a decree for the excess taken from him by Wood.


NOTE. — See Fish v. Lane, post, 342; Gatlin v. Kilpatrick, 4 N.C. 147; Jones v. Jones, 4 N.C. 547; Peace v. Nailing, 16 N.C. 289; Alley v. Ledbetter, ibid., 449; Bizzell v. Bozman, 17 N.C. 154; Armsworthy v. Cheshire, ibid., 234; Dudley v. Cole, 21 N.C. 429; Woodfin v. Smith, ibid., 451; Wells v. Goodbread, 36 N.C. 9; Piercy v. Piercy, ibid., 214.


Summaries of

Taylor v. Wood

Superior Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 1804
3 N.C. 332 (N.C. Super. 1804)
Case details for

Taylor v. Wood

Case Details

Full title:TAYLOR v. WOOD'S EXECUTORS

Court:Superior Court of North Carolina

Date published: Jan 1, 1804

Citations

3 N.C. 332 (N.C. Super. 1804)

Citing Cases

Jones v. Jones

This case, however, steers clear of the inquiry whether equity will relieve against the payment of money on a…

Gatlin v. Kilpatrick

The simple charge is that the parties both agreed not to insert the condition in the note, but trust it to…