64 N.C. 60 | N.C. | 1870
The note upon which the action was brought was as follows:
"Six months after date, with interest from date, we promise to pay James E. Kerr, or order, twelve hundred and fifty (61) *48 dollars, for value received, witness our hands and seals, Nov. 27 1860."
This was signed and sealed by the defendant; and the plaintiff was endorsee and purchaser for value.
The defendant offered to prove that the note was given for professional services rendered to defendant as executor of Solomon Hall deceased, and was due from him as executor, and not in his individual capacity, and that the understanding was that said note was to be paid out of the assets of said estate.
This evidence was rejected by the court. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff: Appeal by the defendant. The defence attempted to be set up, discloses the fact that the bond upon which this action is brought, was executed by the defendant to an attorney for advice and assistance in managing the estate of defendant's testator. Of course then, it is the individual debt of the defendant, and the action is properly brought; had it been brought against him as executor, it could not have been maintained.
It is said in Hailey v. Wheeler,
In a still later case, Beaty v. Gingles, et al. Ex'rs,
Per curiam.
Judgment affirmed. *49
Cited: Hall v. Craige,