From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCall v. Clayton

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Aug 1, 1853
44 N.C. 422 (N.C. 1853)

Opinion

August Term, 1853.

Articles were purchased for a manufacturing company, of which A. was the agent, who thereupon gave a due bill in this form: "Due E. M., $78 — val. rec'd. A. ag't for the M. Co.": Held, that A. was not personally liable thereon.

(The cases of Potts v. Lazarus, 4 N.C. 180; Redmond v. Coffin, 17 N.C. 437; Oliver v. Dix, 21 N.C. 158, cited and approved.)

ASSUMPSIT upon the following instrument:

"Davidson's River — Sept.

"$78. Due Ezekiel McCall, seventy-eight dollars for value received.

(Signed.) George Clayton,

Ag't for Davidson's River Mr. Company."

The defendant pleaded non assumpsit; and on the trial before his Honor, Ellis, J., at HENDERSON, on the last Spring Circuit, it appeared that the articles of property for which the due bill was given were furnished by the plaintiff to Davidson's River Manufacturing Company, and used by them; but the plaintiff contended that the defendant had become personally liable, acting at the time as the agent of said company. By consent of the parties, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff subject to the opinion of the court upon the question of the plaintiff's right to maintain the action; and his Honor, upon consideration of said question reserved, being of opinion that the defendant was a stranger to the consideration, and simply the agent of the company, and as such not personally liable on the bill, set aside the verdict, and entered a judgment of nonsuit, from which the plaintiff appealed to the (423) Supreme Court.

J. Baxter for plaintiff.

Bynum and N.W. Woodfin for defendant.


The propriety of the judgment of nonsuit in this case is fully shown by the cases, among others, of Potts v. Lazarus, 4 N.C. 180; Redmond v. Coffin, 17 N.C. 437, and Oliver v. Dix, 21 N.C. 158. The acknowledgment of the debt due to the plaintiff by the defendant was not in his individual, but his representative, capacity; and the law implies a promise to pay by his principal instead of himself. The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.

Cited: Bryson v. Lucas, 84 N.C. 681; Rounsaville v. Ins. Co., 138 N.C. 195; Hicks v. Kenan, 139 N.C. 344.

Distinguished: Davis v. Burnett, 49 N.C. 74.


Summaries of

McCall v. Clayton

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Aug 1, 1853
44 N.C. 422 (N.C. 1853)
Case details for

McCall v. Clayton

Case Details

Full title:EZEKIEL McCALL v. GEORGE CLAYTON

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Aug 1, 1853

Citations

44 N.C. 422 (N.C. 1853)

Citing Cases

Rounsaville v. Insurance Co.

If the agreement with the plaintiff to renew the policy was made by Carr as agent, and he was acting at the…

Meyers v. Allsbrook

The defendant asserts that the nonsuit might well be sustained on the ground that the evidence shows that in…