{ "id": 8611430, "name": "FARMERS FEDERATION, INC., v. GILBERT H. MORRIS", "name_abbreviation": "Farmers Federation, Inc. v. Morris", "decision_date": "1943-10-13", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "467", "last_page": "469", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "223 N.C. 467" } ], "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": "103 S. E., 6", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "179 N. C., 514", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656612 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/179/0514-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 S. E., 795", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "174 N. C., 236", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11253347 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/174/0236-01" ] }, { "cite": "199 S. E., 383", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "214 N. C., 384", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630848 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/214/0384-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 S. E., 698", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "161 N. C., 50", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269640, 11269652 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/161/0050-01", "/nc/161/0050-02" ] }, { "cite": "73 S. E., 234", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "156 N. C., 553", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272119 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/156/0553-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 S. E., 659", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "187 N. C., 393", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653870 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/187/0393-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 S. E., 240", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "157 N. C., 424", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658079 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/157/0424-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 S. E., 336", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 N. C., 414", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8608535 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/208/0414-01" ] }, { "cite": "218 N. C., 496", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621512 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/218/0496-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 S. E., 471", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "161 N. C., 271", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 374, "char_count": 5892, "ocr_confidence": 0.49, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.228624340884295e-07, "percentile": 0.7787338180720189 }, "sha256": "f658df3d713fabd56a1a0fd5e30000585d7ee923b03cdef6675394fb1df51c26", "simhash": "1:826073077a04905f", "word_count": 1029 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:13:50.990749+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "\"Winbobne, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case." ], "parties": [ "FARMERS FEDERATION, INC., v. GILBERT H. MORRIS." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Staoy, O. J.\nWhether a promise is an original one not coming within the statute of frauds, or a collateral one required by the statute to be in writing, is to be determined from the circumstances of its making, the situation of the parties, and the objects sought to be accomplished.. Simmons v. Groom, 161 N. C., 271, 83 S. E., 471; Balentine v. Gill, 218 N. C., 496, 11 S. E. (2d), 456; Dozier v. Wood, 208 N. C., 414, 181 S. E., 336. Where the intent is doubtful, the solution usually lies in summoning the aid of a jury. Whitehurst v. Padgett, 157 N. C., 424, 73 S. E., 240. The issue was properly submitted to the jury in the instant case. Taylor v. Lee, 187 N. C., 393, 121 S. E., 659; Peele v. Powell, 156 N. C., 553, 73 S. E., 234, on rehearing, 161 N. C., 50, 76 S. E., 698.\nThe instant case comes well within the example put by Mr. Clark in his work on Contracts, 67: \u201cIf, for instance, two persons come into a store and one buys and the other, to gain him credit, promises the seller, 'If he does not pay you, I will,\u2019 this is a collateral undertaking and must be in writing; but if he says, 'Let him have the goods and I will pay,\u2019 or 'I will see you paid,\u2019 and credit is given to him alone, he is himself the buyer, and the undertaking is original.\u201d\nIn respect of the character of the promise, it was competent to show that the defendant had a personal, immediate and pecuniary interest in the transaction. Balentine v. Gill, supra; Whitehurst v. Padgett, supra. For this purpose, it was proper to inquire about his entire connection with the corporation.\nIn excluding the evidence offered and limiting the cross-examination to the time of the purchase of the supplies, the jury was left without a full knowledge of the facts and denied information regarding the defendant\u2019s long-continued interest in the business which would have thrown some light on the matter. \u201cAnything which shows the intention or the actual contract of the parties is material, and any evidence which goes to show the intention of the parties is admissible whether it be by way of conduct or documentary in nature.\u201d 34 Cyc., 980, quoted with approval in Henley v. Holt, 214 N. C., 384, 199 S. E., 383, and Potato Co. v. Jeanette, 174 N. C., 236, 93 S. E., 795.\nTbe examination was also pertinent as tending to impeach the defendant who testified on bis examination in chief that he had no conversation with plaintiff\u2019s witnesses as detailed by them on the witness stand. \u201cIt is not required that the evidence bear directly on the question in issue, and it is competent and relevant if it is one of the circumstances surrounding the parties, and necessary to be known to properly understand their conduct or motives, or to weigh the reasonableness of their contentions.\u201d Bank v. Stack, 179 N. C., 514, 103 S. E., 6.\nA new trial seems necessary. It is so ordered.\nNew trial.\n\"Winbobne, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.", "type": "majority", "author": "Staoy, O. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Smothers \u2022& Meehins for plaintiff, appellant.", "Sale, Pennell -& Pennell for defendant, appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "FARMERS FEDERATION, INC., v. GILBERT H. MORRIS.\n(Filed 13 October, 1943.)\n1. Frauds, Statute of, \u00a7 5\u2014\nWhether a promise is an original one, not coming within the statute of . frauds, or a collateral one, required by the statute to be in writing, is to be determined from the circumstances of its making, the situation of the parties, and the objects sought to be accomplished. Where the intent is doubtful the solution usually lies in summoning the aid of a jury.\n2. Frauds, Statute of, \u00a7\u00a7 5, 7\u2014\nIn respect of the character of a promise, whether or not it is original or collateral under the statute of frauds, it is competent to show that the defendant had a personal, immediate and pecuniary interest in the transaction, and for this purpose it is proper to inquire about his entire com nection with the person for whom the debt was made.\n3. Evidence \u00a7 25: Frauds, Statute of, \u00a7 7\u2014\nIt is not required that evidence bear directly on the question in issue, and it is competent and relevant if it is one of the circumstances surrounding the parties, and necessary to be known to properly understand their conduct or motives, or to weigh the reasonableness of their contentions.\nWinborne, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Nettles, J., at January Term, 1943, of BuNCOmbe.\nCivil action to recover for merchandise furnished and delivered The Haywood, Inc., on personal responsibility of the defendant.\nIt is alleged that in July, 1940, the defendant, who at that time was president of The Haywood, Inc., a corporation engaged in the restaurant business in the city of Asheville, induced the plaintiff to furnish the corporation goods and merchandise upon promise that he would be personally responsible for all bills so contracted. It is in evidence that the defendant said \u201che wanted credit extended to The Haywood, Inc.; that Mrs. Little was running it; that she was a fine woman and that he was backing her. ... I am backing her, and I will see that it is. paid.\u201d\nIt was further alleged that the defendant had an immediate, personal, pecuniary interest in the corporation and its business.\nThe defendant denied the allegations of the complaint and pleaded the statute of frauds.\nOn cross-examination, the plaintiff undertook to question the defendant about the formation of the corporation \u2014 his endorsement of note to secure the original funds \u2014 and his continued interest therein. Mrs. Little was also questioned about the defendant\u2019s interest in the business. Tbe court confined the examination of these witnesses \u201cto the time of the alleged purchase of these supplies.\u201d Exception. Plaintiff\u2019s counsel: \u201cHe admits that he was president and a stockholder of the company.\u201d The Court: \u201cI think that is as far as you can go.\u201d\nFrom verdict and judgment for defendant, the plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.\nSmothers \u2022& Meehins for plaintiff, appellant.\nSale, Pennell -& Pennell for defendant, appellee." }, "file_name": "0467-01", "first_page_order": 519, "last_page_order": 521 }