Ledbetter v. Quick

4 Citing cases

  1. First Nat. Bank v. Gutru

    52 N.D. 918 (N.D. 1925)   Cited 1 times

    Not even snuff, shoes, calico. Ledbetter v. Quick, 90 N.C. 276. JOHNSON, J.

  2. Smith v. French

    53 S.E. 435 (N.C. 1906)   Cited 20 times

    This was a collateral matter, having no connection whatever with the transaction out of which the plaintiff's demand (10) arose, and so did not constitute a counterclaim at all. In Reynolds v. Smathers, 87 N.C. 24, there is an intimation that there is the difference in the two sections of the statute here pointed out, and in Ledbetter v. Quick, 90 N.C. 276, a more decided intimation that the very counterclaim set up here would have been available to defendant. Even if the present opinion should be found to conflict with some former decision, it is only a question of procedure, not involving a rule of property, and we think it better that our present construction of the statute should be now declared the true one, as more in accord with the spirit and letter of our Code, which, as heretofore stated, designs and contemplates that all matters growing out of our connected with the same controversy should be adjusted in one and the same action.

  3. Brown v. Brown

    13 S.E. 797 (N.C. 1891)   Cited 2 times

    They are presumed to be such. There are other things not directly so appropriate — such as shoes, tobacco, dry-goods, groceries and the like, which the landlord may supply to the lessee to pay his laborers. When such supplies are made, whether they make advancements or not, depends on whether they were supplied for the purpose specified. It must appear affirmatively that they were. That the lessee diverts such things from the purpose contemplated cannot change their nature and the purpose of them. Womble v. Leach, 83 N.C. 84; Ledbetter v. Quick, 90 N.C. 276. If here the plaintiff had supplied the defendant, as his tenant, (128) with meal, meat, sugar and coffee in reasonable quantities, or appropriate farming tools to make and save his crop, such things, in the nature of the matter, would have been directly appropriate for the purpose, and the presumption would have been that they were advancements. That the plaintiff supplied substances from his own table to the defendant for such purpose, could make no substantial or legal difference, because he supplied that which was in its nature, and that of the whole matter, essential to make and save the crops, and the relations of the parties raised the presumption that such supplies were advancements.

  4. Brewer v. Chappel

    101 N.C. 251 (N.C. 1888)   Cited 7 times

    It imports much in his favor, and we are not at liberty to treat it as meaningless. Montague v. Mial, 89 N.C. 137; Livingston v. Farish, id., 140; Ledbetter v. Quick, 90 N.C. 276; Thigpen v. Leigh, 93 N.C. 47; Moore v. Faison, 97 N.C. 322; Wooten v. Hill, 98 N.C. 48. We are, therefore, of opinion that the defendant Woodlief was landlord of his codefendant, and had a lien on the crops produced on the land to secure the rent due him from and the advancements made by him to his tenant, to be preferred above the lien of the plaintiffs thereon and all other liens.