Opinion · Nclaw North Carolina

JONES v. MORRIS, 29 N.C. 370 (1847)

29 N.C. 370

Type
Opinion
Court
Nclaw North Carolina
Jurisdiction
Nclaw
Date
1847-01-01
Topic
general

JONES v. MORRIS, 29 N.C. 370 (1847) MICHAEL JONES v. WILLIAM B. MORRIS, EXECUTOR, ETC.Supreme Court of North Carolina (August Term, 1847.) Where the defendant, in consideration of a debt he owed, agreed to let the plaintiff have a bed and furniture of the value of $28, but no particular bed and furniture were conveyed or delivered, and afterwards the defendant refused to deliver any bed and furniture: Held, that the action of trover would not lie for the plaintiff. APPEAL from McDOWELL Spring Term, 1847; Dick J.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed JONES v. MORRIS, 29 N.C. 370 (1847). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

JONESv. MORRIS,29 N.C. 370(1847)
MICHAEL JONES v. WILLIAM B. MORRIS, EXECUTOR, ETC.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
(August Term, 1847.)
Where the defendant, in consideration of a debt he owed, agreed to let the plaintiff have a bed and furniture of the value of $28, but no particular bed and furniture were conveyed or delivered, and afterwards the defendant refused to deliver any bed and furniture:Held, that the action of trover would not lie for the plaintiff.
APPEAL from McDOWELL Spring Term, 1847;Dick J.

Trover for a bed and furniture, tried on not guilty. The (371) case was that Morris was found to be indebted to Jones, on a settlement, in the sum of $60, and they agreed that the former should give the latter his note for $32 (which he did) and also should give him a bed and furniture at the price of $28, being the residue of the debt, when Jones should apply for it at the house of Morris. Shortly afterwards Jones went there for the purpose of getting the bed and furniture, and met Morris at the gate going from the house, who requested plaintiff to go to the house, saying he would be back soon. The plaintiff went in, but was ordered out by Mrs. Morris, and went away without seeing Morris, and then brought this suit. The court expressed the opinion that the plaintiff could not recover, because he made no demand on Morris for the bed and furniture, and also because he failed to prove a conversion, and in submission thereto the plaintiff suffered a nonsuit and appealed.Page 260
Guion for plaintiff.Edney for defendant.
RUFFIN, C. J.
A demand was really immaterial, for if it had been made and refused it would not have entitled the plaintiff to recover in this form. His case fails because he has not shown a property in any bed and furniture which could be converted to his prejudice. The agreement between the parties was merely executory, obliging Morris to convey and deliver to the plaintiff some bed and furniture of the value of $28, and not amounting to a conveyance or delivery of any bed and furniture in particular, so as to vest the title in the plaintiff. The action was, therefore, misconceived, and cannot be sustained.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed.Cited: Hill v. Robinson,48 N.C. 504;Blakeley v. Patrick,67 N.C. 42;Sharpe v. Pearce,74 N.C. 602;Shearin v. Riggsbee,97 N.C. 220.

(372)