*1 505 1902. TEEM, N.-C.] v. Wilson. Bond decided this bas And this been in this opinion.
tioned Barrett, Ruffin, v. 38 631. C., N. in. the Long Court case is about “As when be one, said: C. there Court, a in separate others for stipulate become a witb may surety would co-sureties from him, the principal demnity Moore reimbursement. after bis be entitled surplus only Moore, So there can Dec., 11 15 Am. 523. 358; N. C., sureties for com become doubt after have persons two themselves, between mon they principal, may, by agreement from securities their benefit any they to take renounce right exclu and each look out himself may respectively obtain, or for contribu an from the indemnity principal, sively tion from another co-surety.”
BOND v. WILSON. 1902.) (Filed December n Negotiable Jury—Correction Instruments Yer&ict-— VERDICT — Trial. instrument, negotiable where an action on a tbe allows In thereon, thereof, find the credits but fails to dates is diregt them error for the trial court find the retire the credits. dates of Pay- negotiable OF
2. LIMITATIONS Instruments — ACTIONS— ' ments —Iindorsement. negotiable a letter instrument written an action on agent plaintiff, referring to an ac- to the agent plaintiff and the defendant and count between showing notes, is credits entered on the some evidence that the credits were entered be submitted to authority defendant. the. Wilson, M. J. W. and others against Lou Bond Action Term, B. at June W. jury, Councill beard Judge ' THE IN SUPREME COURT. [131 Bond v. Wilson. *2 1902, of the a County. Court of From Superior Burke for the the judgment both parties, appealed. plaintiffs, Perkins, John T. A. E. C. and J. for the Avery, Justice, plaintiffs. Hill, Ervin,
Thomas N. and & for the defendant. Avery J. The defendant claimed several credits Montgomery, on of him the notes sued payments upon account on, but which were not endorsed the notes themselves. upon One for was the of amount which $800, the defendant averred he had for a mill wheel paid at of request the the of the agent and another was the plaintiffs; $240 payment of freight on bill the wheel. When the in the jury brought verdict, and it was read direction of it Court, the was seen that while the had allowed the jury credits, two omitted had they mention the the dates credits should bear. Whereupon, Honor directed the retire and in the jury state date writing which the of upon the thousand dollars payment forty and for the mill wheel and should be entered. re freight They turned with their the verdict, credit as of the of 1st finding 1816. The January, plaintiff to the direction excepted the Court the to amend their requiring jury verdict, insisting that “the at verdict as first inwas, rendered contemplation of a law, jury $1,040 should be finding by said cred ited as of term; the 1st of the day that, that, instead Court interfered with the province jury rights in violation in of the law parties directing finding credit.” time for said specific We are unable entering on see just any ground complaint part plaintiff in mentioned. It was an the particular imperfect verdict as first at but the date of the rendered, finding payment in was it made it and no sense complete, contradictory. It 507 TERM, N. C.] Bond v. Wilson. thing, as well as just have done, the proper thing
was con are instance. Juries the first was if the verdict right facts material of finding for the very purpose stituted their on part discovers case, and when the Court failure re can direct to find all of the material facts, N. In Wright Hemphill, the verdict. tire amend had the Clerk and their verdict to returned C., 33, Honor upon upon coming separated night, them retire the bench in the he ordered morning, for the recovery verdict. That an action their was complete *3 as to Clerk the verdict handed of and personal property, there was an omis defendant, in the but property fixed and assess the damages sion to find the value of property “It the Court said: is proper detention. There, always in return their verdict open when jury Judge, Court, to see that it is to material issue responsive every re so, if it be to to them, fact submitted to not refuse and, and direct in ceive retire make up bring it, verdict.” 72 N. complete Willoughby Threadgill, C., 438, returned verdict to the Clerk at dinner recess in favor of the interest. certain, a sum without plaintiff his When his Honor resumed the verdict as rendered sitting, the Clerk was and entered by brought attention, in the court his Honor room, directed them jury being take their and after them in the law as to places, instructing the rule of asked them to retire and amend their interest, verdict That instructions. course was according ap in case, this Court. Of as was said course, proved by such not be a course would admissible criminal actions. The other are without merit. exceptions
No did not sit on this hearing
Clark, appeal. IN THE -SUPREME COURT. [131
Bond v. Wilson. APPEAL DEPENDANT'S IN SAME CASE. J. This case is like it stood when exactly Montgomery, it was here 129 N. that the before, 387, except plaintiffs C., offered evidence certain letter written the defendant Tate, to Samuel McD. after the commencement this suit, on the payments made bearing question alleged on the notes sued in addition to- the evidence on, on that at the first The point dated at hearing. letter, is in the Raleigh, 1891, words and January following figures:
“When at home would have called see but was too you, unwell. I find the Bonds are had no idea overpaid; largely payments and did except you, first, know how much it was. Is there could anything you possi- hold on bly to until it is ? adjudicated show My books cash $2,300. for Walton paid House, “Credited at sale. paid $644.56 amount entered 509.94 “Credited on notes. “Credited 154.90 by. 310.03 by. “Credited *4 “Credited by..... 258.21
1,811.58.” The above was an account between Tate and Wilson (the of a fund in the hands of Tate defendant) to Wil belonging son—the of the sale of proceeds real estate piece The Morganton. Second credit Tate of given $509.94, Wilson was admitted Tate on Wilson’s due to placed *5 summons. dissenting.
Clark, notes by .the plaintiffs direction of by Wilson. That was credit made on the 3d of the 1884, $3,000. on The third credit June, $154.90 was direction of made, Tate on the by by Wilson, $2,000 note on 1884. The amount, fourth August 12, 1902. TEEM, N. C.] Fellows. McClure v. on September credit on $3,000, is endorsed as a $310.03, as a is endorsed fifth $258.21, and the 1890; amount, 11, The last two 1883. note, August, credit on $2,000 with the authority if on the bonds Tate amounts, by entered statute the defendant’s defendant, plea defeat between Tate the business relations limitations. Considering to the that the we are inclined letter was Wilson, opinion submitted payments. evidence be some between the sale of Walton Several had years elapsed the entries made Tate for the property defendant, notes; were in Tate on even (they handwriting) to the written m> had been up protest letter, 1897, hands; fund in Tate’s in or disposition against made of the fund. The was to the evidence submitted quiry with under instruction proper Honor, together of was them. It that of the defendant, weight was than or The moré a scintilla instruction suspicion. that the notes were barred prayed of limitations on the evidence was refused. properly statute No did not sit on of this Clark, J., appeal. hearing McCLURE FELLOWS. (Filed 1902.) 16, December OF SERVICE PROCESS—Summons—Publications—Attachment— Code, 161, 219, 218, The Secs. 852 and Code, 218, requires attachment, The Sec. the issuance and served, publication of return of summons as a basis for