Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina
Connor v. . Mason
205 N.C. 412
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of North Carolina
- Jurisdiction
- North Carolina
- Date
- 1933-11-01
- Topic
- general
Per Curiam. Tbe plaintiff brought suit to recover certain personal property which he caused to be seized under proceedings in claim and delivery. Tbe defendant replevied. Tbe jury found that tbe plaintiff is not tbe owner of tbe property, that its value at tbe time of seizure was $600, its present value $300, and that tbe plaintiff is indebted to tbe defendant in tbe sum of $300. It was adjudged that tbe plaintiff recover $600 with interest less $300 to be credited as of tbe time of trial and that tbe recovery in favor of tbe plaintiff, excepting tbe sum of $50 is a lien upon the property described in tbe pleadings.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Connor v. . Mason. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
Tbe plaintiff brought suit to recover certain personal property which he caused to be seized under proceedings in claim and delivery. Tbe defendant replevied. Tbe jury found that tbe plaintiff is not tbe owner of tbe property, that its value at tbe time of seizure was $600, its present value $300, and that tbe plaintiff is indebted to tbe defendant in tbe sum of $300. It was adjudged that tbe plaintiff recover $600 with interest less $300 to be credited as of tbe time of trial and that tbe recovery in favor of tbe plaintiff, excepting tbe sum of $50 is a lien upon the property described in tbe pleadings. Tbe question is *413 wbetber tbe verdict supports the judgment. It is recited in the judgment as an admission of the defendant that the property when paid for was to be the plaintiff’s. In view of this admission we think the judgment is in substantial compliance with the law.
No error.