Justice ex rel. Bronson, Hoyt & McEntire v. Hamilton, 67 N.C. 111 (1872)

June 1872 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

67 N.C. 111

T. B. JUSTICE to the use of BRONSON, HOYT & McENTIRE vs. J. M. HAMILTON.

Payment, in 1863, to>a Confederate Receiver,.of a. note for money belonging-to citizens of Now York, given before- the late war to a citizen of this State who acted as their agent, and surrendered by him as their pioperty to the Receiver, Held, to be no defence in a suit against the maker, brought by the payee, to the use of the beneficial owners.

[Wan'd v. Branch, Phil. Eq.'ll, and Blackwell v. Willard, Co, N. C. R. 555, cited and approved.]

Debt, brought in 1866,to Estiierford Superior Court, and subsequently removed to Henderson Superior Court, and tried at Spring Term, 1872,. before Henry, J.

The suit was brought for the- recovery of $114'.91 and interest, the amount of three notes executed in 1860 and 1861 "by the defendant to the plaintiff, Justice, a. citizen of Eutlierf'ord County, for moneys which he had in hand as agent of Bronson, Iloyt & McEntire, a mercantile firm of New Yorlc. After the commencement of the late war, Justice, under a decree of a Confederate District Court, surrendered the notes to the Confedérate Eeceiver for the 8th Congressional District.

The defendant relied upon the plea of payment, and it ivas proved on the trial that some time in the year 1863 he paid the amount of the notes to the Eeceiver, in the presence of Justice, and took them in possession and cancelled them. Hpon finding of the facts by the jury, bis Honor gave judgment for the plaintiff and defendant appealed.

No counsel for plaintiff',.

Folk and Hwjnte, for defendant..

Ebade, J.

Th-e ©nly question necessary to be considered is] whether voluntary payment of the amount of the notes sued on to the Confederate Eeceiver, was a satisfaction of th©: notes as against the beneficial plaintiffs' who were not citizens of the Confederate Government ? His Honor was oi opinion with the plaintiffs ; and we are of the same opinion, for the reason that the payment was neither to the plaintiff nor any agent of liis. See Ward v. Branch, Phil. Eq. 71. Blackwell v. Willard, 65 N. C. R. 555.

There is no error.

Pee Curiam. Judgment affirmed.