{
  "id": 8606249,
  "name": "S. C. RIPPLE v. T. A. M. STEVENSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ripple v. Stevenson",
  "decision_date": "1943-06-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "284",
  "last_page": "286",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "223 N.C. 284"
    }
  ],
  "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": "221 N. C., 400",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627957
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/221/0400-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 S. E., 320",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N. C., 470",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217650
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0470-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 S. E., 847",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 N. C., 61",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651598
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/142/0061-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "166 S. E., 313",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 N. C., 498",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614036
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/203/0498-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "222 N. C., 411",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630614
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/222/0411-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 S. E., 707",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N. C., 258",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217869
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0258-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 S. E., 721",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 N. C., 166",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270204
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/150/0166-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 323,
    "char_count": 4138,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.491,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.993062981449295e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5029517164900348
    },
    "sha256": "847d4c726ffca67d678341a2c8ff274aa2c2ba146ba3d65d4c6b9834f349174f",
    "simhash": "1:fa2852f18c75386a",
    "word_count": 735
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:13:50.990749+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "S. C. RIPPLE v. T. A. M. STEVENSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nWe have here for determination, (1) the merit of the motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit, and (2) the correctness of the charge.\nThe right to maintain the action is challenged on the ground that the plaintiff is not the real party in interest, as the \u201cservices\u201d for which the note was given were rendered to the partnership of Ripple and Stevenson. Chapman v. McLawhorn, 150 N. C., 166, 63 S. E., 721. Even so, it also appears that the note represents a personal transaction between the parties. At least, such is the plaintiff\u2019s evidence, and this would seem to be sufficient to defeat the motion for judgment of nonsuit under one or more of the exceptions set out in Pugh v. New Bern, 193 N. C., 258, 136 S. E., 707.\nIt is permissible for the parties to agree that a note shall be paid only-in a certain manner, e.g., out of a particular fund, by the foreclosure of collateral, or from rents collected from a certain building, etc. Jones v. Casstevens, 222 N. C., 411. And this part of the agreement may be shown, though it rest in parol. In Wilson v. Allsbrook, 203 N. C., 498, 166 S. E., 313, the alleged agreement was, that the note there in suit should be paid \u201cfrom rents collected by the defendant.\u201d Here, the defendant alleges a similar agreement. However, the jury did not accept the defendant\u2019s contention in respect of the mode of payment. See Evans v. Freeman, 142 N. C., 61, 54 S. E., 847; Bank v. Winslow, 193 N. C., 470, 137 S. E., 320.\nIn the light of the theory of the trial, as announced in the pleadings and pursued on the hearing, the case presents little more than controverted issues of fact, determinable alone by the jury. There are a number of exceptions to the charge, some of omission, others of commission, but a careful perusal of the entire record induces the conclusion that none of them can he sustained. It would be repetitious of familiar principles to discuss them in detail. The usual formula of contextual interpretation is to be applied to the charge. S. v. Smith, 221 N. C., 400, 20 S. E. (2d), 360.\nOn the record as presented, the verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Fred M. Parrish for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Richmond Rucker and Womble, Carlyle, Martin <& Sandridge for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "S. C. RIPPLE v. T. A. M. STEVENSON.\n(Filed 2 June, 1943.)\n1. Partnership \u00a7 5\u2014\nIn an action by one partner against the other on a promissory note, which appears on its face to be a personal transaction between the parties, which the plaintiff\u2019s evidence confirms, a motion for nonsuit was properly denied.\n2. Contracts \u00a7\u00a7 8, 16\u2014\nIt is permissible for the parties to agree that a note shall be paid only in a certain manner, i.e., out of a particular fund, by the foreclosure of collateral, or from rents collected, etc. And this part of the agreement may be shown, though it rests in parol.\nAppeal by defendant from Gwyn, J., at January Term, 1943, of FORSYTE.\nCivil action to recover on promissory note in words and figures as follows:\n\u201c$2500.00 Winston-Salem, N. C.\nOct. 22, 1930\n\u201cNinety days after date, I promise to pay to S. C. Ripple or order Twenty-Five Hundred & No/100 Dollars for value received in Services payable with interest after date at Wachovia Bank & Trust Company.\nT. A. M. Stevenson (Seal).\u201d\nThe plaintiff alleges that on 15 April, 1932, the defendant made a payment of $75.00 on his note, which was duly credited thereon. The present action was instituted 11 April, 1942.\nThe defendant admits the execution of the note, but pleads that it was to be paid out of rents or profits to be derived from an office building to be erected on a lot owned by plaintiff and defendant as tenants in common. It is admitted that there were no such rents or profits.\nThe defendant further pleads payment of $1,143.80 on 22 June, 1931, derived from other transactions, which he alleges the plaintiff failed to credit on the note. He also pleads the ten-year statute of limitations in bar of the plaintiff\u2019s right to recover.\nUpon the issues thus joined, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. From judgment thereon, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nFred M. Parrish for plaintiff, appellee.\nRichmond Rucker and Womble, Carlyle, Martin <& Sandridge for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0284-01",
  "first_page_order": 336,
  "last_page_order": 338
}