Planters Stores Co. v. Bullock, 180 N.C. 656 (1920)

Sept. 29, 1920 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

180 N.C. 656

PLANTERS STORES CO. v. ANNA BULLOCK et al.

(Filed 29 September, 1920.)

Judgments — Appeal and Error — Reformation of Judgment — Supplies Furnished — Mortgages, Chattel — Collateral Security — Husband and Wife.

When a man and his wife have executed a chattel mortgage as collateral security for supplies furnished the husband during 1915, she is liable only for the supplies furnished for that year, and not the preceding one; and whgre judgment has been rendered, in an action upon the note and mortgage, subjecting the collateral in part to the payment for the supplies for the preceding year, and error has been committed as showd by the facts and figures ascertained, the judgment appealed from will be reformed accordingly.

Appeal by plaintiff from Bond, J., at tbe September Term, 1920, of VaNce.

This is an action on a note for $500 secured by chattel mortgage.

Tbe defendants admitted tbe execution of .the note and mortgage, but contended that they were given as collateral to secure an account for. supplies for 1915.

Tbe male defendant owed a balance on account for 1914.

There was a verdict and judgment for tbe defendants, and tbe plaintiff appealed, relying principally on tbe position that there is no evidence to support the claim of defendants.

T. T. Hicks for plaintiff.

J. Q. Kittrell and Thomas M. Pittman for defendants.

Pee OubiaM.

Tbe evidence is meager, but we cannot say there is none in support of tbe contention of tbe defendants.

It appears, however, from tbe record that there is error in tbe amount recovered by tbe defendant, and tbe judgment must be reformed.

Tbe total account for 1914 and 1915 is $652.39, of which $410.16 is for 1914, and $242.23 for 1915.

Tbe female defendant is, on tbe verdict, only liable for tbe account of 1915.

Tbe total payments made are $315.22, but of this sum $125 should be applied to tbe account of 1914, because tbe proceeds of tbe sale of a horse conveyed by mortgage to secure that account, which would leave $190.22, to be applied to tbe account of 1915, leaving $52.01 due on that account, which, when deducted from tbe two sums of $290 and $40.69, aggregating $330.69, recovered by tbe defendant, gives as tbe true amount of tbe judgment $280.68.

Let tbe judgment be reformed accordingly.

Tbe costs of tbe appeal will be divided.

Modified and affirmed.