From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McNeely Walton v. Haynes Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 1877
76 N.C. 122 (N.C. 1877)

Summary

In McNeely v. Haynes, 76 N.C. 122, Mr. Justice Bynum, in using the words "in a civil action the defendant cannot be arrested unless he has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt, C. C. P., sec. 149 (4)," restricts his meaning to the case then in hand by italicizing the word "he"; otherwise it might be negatively an authority for excluding the other subsections.

Summary of this case from Moore v. Mullen

Opinion

(January Term, 1877.)

Arrest — Liability of Partners.

A defendant cannot be arrested under C. C. P. sec; 149, (sub. sec. 4) unless he has been guilty of fraud in contracting the debt for which the action is brought. Therefore, when one partner in a firm obtains credit by false representations, the other partner is not liable to arrest.

MOTION to vacate an Order of Arrest, made at Fall Term 1876, of ROWAN Superior Court, before Cloud, J.

No statement of the facts is necessary to an understanding of the opinion. His Honor allowed the motion to vacate, and the plaintiff appealed.

Mr. Jas. C Kerr, for the plaintiffs.

Mr. J. M. McCorkle, for the defendants.


The defendants, J. A. and Calvin Haynes were partners in a mercantile business carried on in the county of Yadkin, where they both lived.

The plaintiffs were doing business in the town of Salisbury. Calvin Haynes purchased of the plaintiffs a bill of goods, as he at the time alleged, for the defendant firm and obtained credit therefor by false pretences and representations.

The plaintiffs thereupon instituted an action against both J. A. and Calvin Haynes, upon which J. A. Haynes only was arrested, Calvin having escaped.

In a civil action, the defendant cannot be arrested, unless he has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt. C. C. P. § 149, sub. section 4. As it appears from the case, J. A. Haynes was not present when the goods were purchased by Calvin, had no knowledge of it and in no wise connived at or assented to it; nor does it appear that the goods were sent to or received by him. His affidavit negatives every allegation of fraud on his part and the counter-affidavit of the plaintiff does not contradict it.

His Honor did not err in vacating the order of arrest as to the defendant J. A. Haynes.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

McNeely Walton v. Haynes Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 1877
76 N.C. 122 (N.C. 1877)

In McNeely v. Haynes, 76 N.C. 122, Mr. Justice Bynum, in using the words "in a civil action the defendant cannot be arrested unless he has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt, C. C. P., sec. 149 (4)," restricts his meaning to the case then in hand by italicizing the word "he"; otherwise it might be negatively an authority for excluding the other subsections.

Summary of this case from Moore v. Mullen
Case details for

McNeely Walton v. Haynes Co.

Case Details

Full title:McNEELY WALTON v. J. A. HAYNES Co

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Jan 1, 1877

Citations

76 N.C. 122 (N.C. 1877)

Citing Cases

Powers v. Davenport

It has been held that under subsection 4, sec. 291, of The Code, a defendant cannot be arrested unless he has…

Moore v. Mullen

So the Constitution cannot be made to include a breach of a promise to marry without extending it to a breach…