{
  "id": 11270204,
  "name": "R. G. CHAPMAN & CO. v. CHARLES McLAWHORN",
  "name_abbreviation": "R. G. Chapman & Co. v. McLawhorn",
  "decision_date": "1909-02-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "166",
  "last_page": "167",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "150 N.C. 166"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "126 N. C., 628",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 N. C., 568",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 N. C., 376",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 N. C., 653",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 N. C., 416",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 N. C., 452",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N. C., 407",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 N. C., 194",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N. C., 523",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683152
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/74/0523-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 238,
    "char_count": 3093,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.517,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.348527500992116e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9588014590812051
    },
    "sha256": "c3073fcf2e95e2f2bbed61fc6e0d0bee9c554ffa3fbafe565e951e39fc57a089",
    "simhash": "1:ffbd1dae134d689d",
    "word_count": 552
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:20.077008+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. G. CHAPMAN & CO. v. CHARLES McLAWHORN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, C. J.\nThis was an action to recover for guano sold the defendant.. The answer averred that the guano was bought of plaintiffs as agents of the Royster Guano Company. Chapman testified that bis firm sold the guano, as agents for the Royster Guano Company, on a del credere commission \u2014 tbat is, the agents guaranteed payment on all sales and were to turn over all notes and accounts, when called for, tbougb be says they were not always called for. Tbe plaintiffs put in evidence their contract witb the guano company, wbicb provides, \u201call the above fertilizers to be consigned to you, as herein provided, as our agents, remain our property until sold by you, and, after sale by you, the cash, notes, accounts or other proceeds of sale are our property.\u201d Chapman further testified tbat bis firm bad a subsequent agreement witb the Royster Guano Company tbat if the plaintiffs brought this action the guano company was to be responsible for the costs, and if the plaintiffs did not collect this bill they would not pay the guano company.\nIn any aspect of the case, whether the plaintiffs were released from their guarantee of sales or not, they were simply agents for the Royster Guano Company, wbicb owned the guano and the debt incurred by the defendant for its purchase. \u201cEvery action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.\u201d As it is clear tbat the proceeds of any judgment in this action, if recovered by the plaintiffs, would be the property of the Royster Guano Company, the court properly allowed the motion for nonsuit, on the ground tbat \u201cthe evidence disclosed tbat the plaintiffs were not the owners of the account sued on.\u201d Abrams v. Cureton, 74 N. C., 523; Alexander v. Wriston, 81 N. C., 194; Jackson v. Love, 82 N. C., 407; Wilcoxon v. Logan, 94 N. C., 452; Wynne v. Heck, 92 N. C., 416; Egerton v. Carr, 94 N. C., 653; Boyd v. Insurance Co., 111 N. C., 376; Boykin v. Bank, 118 N. C., 568; Morefield v. Harris, 126 N. C., 628. And there are many other cases to like effect. Besides, the statute is explicit. The plaintiffs, here bad no interest in this claim. They were neither legal nor equitable owners of it, nor were they trustees of an express trust.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. G. James and Jarvis & Blow for plaintiffs.",
      "J. L. Fleming and Skinner & Whedbee for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. G. CHAPMAN & CO. v. CHARLES McLAWHORN.\n(Filed 24 February, 1909.)\n1. Principal and Agent \u2014 Guaranty of Payment \u2014 Party in Interest\u2014 Trusts and Trustees.\nAn agent to sell goods on a del credere commission \u2014 that is, who guarantees payment on all sales and turns over to the principal, when called for, all notes, accounts, etc. \u2014 is not a real party in interest, and cannot maintain, in his own right or by construction, as trustee of an express trust, an action to recover for the goods sold.\n2. Same \u2014 Evidence\u2014Nonsuit.\nWhen it is shown that a plaintiff is not a real party in interest, his action to recover, brought .-in his own right, will be dis-miss\u00e9d on \u00e1 motion as of nonsuit upon the evidence.\nAction heard before O. H. Allen, J., and a jury, at August Term, 1908, of Pitt.\nF. G. James and Jarvis & Blow for plaintiffs.\nJ. L. Fleming and Skinner & Whedbee for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0166-01",
  "first_page_order": 210,
  "last_page_order": 211
}