Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

Walton v. . McKesson

64 N.C. 154

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Date
1870-01-05
Topic
bankruptcy

Rodman, J. This suit began by writ issued March 14th 1866; and although the pleas appear not to have been put in until Fall Term 1869, it was a suit pending at the ratification of the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore to be tried by existing laws: Teague v. James, 63 N. C. 91; Gaither v. Gibson, Id. 93.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Walton v. . McKesson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
WALTONv. McKESSON,64 N.C. 154(1870)
W. M. WALTON v. W. F. McKESSON AND OTHERS.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
January Term, 1870.
An account due by the plaintiff to one of several defendants, is not competent as a set-off against the debt which is the subject matter of the action.
Actions pending at the adoption of the C.C.P. are to be tried under the laws previously existing.
DEBT, tried beforeMitchell, J., at Fall Term 1869 of BURKE Court.
The plaintiff declared upon a single bill executed to him by the defendants, W. F. McKesson, Charles McDowell, the intestate of the defendant N.W. Woodfin, and James McKesson, the intestate of the defendant W. F. McKesson as adm'r. The pleas were Payment and Set-off. On the trial the defendant McKesson, offered in evidence a book account alleged to be due to him by the plaintiffPage 120together with one Thomas S. Walton, as partners. This evidence was objected to by the plaintiff, and excluded by the court. The defendant excepted. Verdict for the plaintiff. Rule, etc.; Judgment, and Appeal by the defendants.
Folk for the appellants.Furches contra.
RODMAN, J.
This suit began by writ issued March 14th 1866; and although the pleas appear not to have been put in until Fall Term 1869, it was a suit pending at the ratification of the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore to be tried by existing laws:Teague v. James,63 N.C. 91;Gaither v. Gibson,Id. 93.

We think the cases ofState Bank v. Armstrong,15 N.C. 523, andJones v. Gilreath,28 N.C. 338, are decisive against the defendant. This case may be enlightened fromHurdle v. Hanner, 50 N.C. (155) 360, which was cited for the defendant, in this: in that case there was but one defendant, here there are several. What relief the defendant may find in the Code, it is not for us to say.

Judgment below affirmed. Let this be certified.

Per curiam.

Judgment affirmed.Cited: Walton v. McKesson,101 N.C. 436;Wilson v. Pearson,102 N.C. 307;Dameron v. Carpenter,190 N.C. 598;Benevolent Assoc. v. Neal,194 N.C. 403.