Clark v. Shields, 10 N.C. 461, 3 Hawks 461 (1825)

June 1825 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

10 N.C. 461, 3 Hawks 461

Clark v. Shields.

"I i From Halifax. J

Where a writ was issued in the name of A as plaintiff, and at the time of issuing it. A endorsed thereon that the suit was brought to the use of Iij it was held, that A thereby made B his agent to receive and collect the amount of the debt sued for, and gave notice of such agency to the world, and that consequently A was bound by the act of bis agent within the authority given him: that the authority here was to receive to his own use, and not as a mere collector, and therefore, that B might receive any thing which he thought proper in discharge of the defat.

Debt on bond. After the jury was impannclled below to try this cause, on motion of the plaintiff’s counsel' the name of Thomas Cox was expunged. Neither the writ or declaration contained the name of Cox, but the record! transmitted to this Court was endorsed'« dark to the use of Cox v. Shields.”

On the trial below, the defendant offered evidence to prove that he and Cox, after the writ issued and1 before the return- term thereof, entered into an agreement that the defendant should-deliver to Cox, staves-at 30 dollars" per thousand, and that Cox should receive them at that price in part payment of the bond' on which this suit was brought. This evidence was objected to, but received by the Court, and the defendant then proved that under this agreement he had delivered to Cot some thousand staves. The Court among other things instructed the jury, that Clark, the legal plaintiff, by endorsing on his writ at the time lie issued it, that the action was brought to the use of Cot, thereby created the said Cot his agent, to collect and receive the amount of that debt, and gave notice of agency to the world; that consequently Clark was bound by the act of his said agent within the authority g[ven {j¡m. anc] ag the authority was to receive to his own use, and not merely to collect as an ordinary collectox*, the agent might receive any thing in discharge of the-debt he thought proper.

The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, after deducting all payments, of $ 366 69; and from the judgment rendered, plaintiff appealed to this Court.

The cause originally commenced in the County Court, and there, as appeared from the record sent up, defendant confessed judgment for $ 523 72, with g 275 84 interest thereon.

A new trial was moved for by the plaintiff, and refused; whereupon he appealed to this Court, from the judgment rendered below.

Hall, Judge.

Laying out of the case the facts contained in the judge’s charge, it is difficult to perceive what the agency and equity .of Cox were. It seems that his name was somewhere inserted on the record, but for what purpose, does not appear. But from the facts set forth in the judge’s charge, the agency conferred upon Cox and his equity under it, are obvious. It is unnecessary to repeat them. I altogether approve of the charge of the judge upon them, for the reasons by him given, which I also think it unnecessary to repeat. I think the rule for a new trial should be discharged.

And in this opinion the other judges concurred; so

Judgment aeeirmed.