{
  "id": 11278824,
  "name": "W. S. BROADDUS & S. W. EDWARDS, partners, &c. v. W. J. EVANS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Broaddus v. Evans",
  "decision_date": "1869-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "633",
  "last_page": "635",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. 633"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 3977,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.45,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41408707611910966
    },
    "sha256": "8857c2c134fe5405984a5da09fc80e1057f104729d191e584fb913ba1d98871c",
    "simhash": "1:dee3e43b6f4e528b",
    "word_count": 677
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:48.011339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. S. BROADDUS & S. W. EDWARDS, partners, &c. v. W. J. EVANS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Read\u00ae. J.\nHis Honor instructed the jury that, to entitle the plaintiff to recover there must be \u201c privity of contract.\u201d That is unquestionably true. He then instructed them that according to the evidence there was no privity. Of course that was an end of the case, and was the same as to say that they must find for the defendant.\nIn this there was error: for, the fact that the plaintiffs furnished the lumber and the defendant received it, raised an implied promise on the part\u2019 of the defendant to pay the plaintiffs for it.\nThis implied promise was, however, subject to be controlled by any express contract which may have existed between the parties, and evidence was offered to show that there was an express contract between one of the plaintiffs, Edwards, and the defendant, to the effect that the defendant was not to pay the plaintiffs, but was to pay him, Edwards, by crediting the amount of the lumber on an individual claim of the defendant's against Edwards. This contract, supposing it to have existed, was no defence in this action, because it was a fraud upon the partnership \u2014 the plaintiffs. A creditor of one of several partners has no right, even under an express contract with such partner, to apply partnership effects to the satisfaction of a debt against such partner. This is, however, subject to the exception, that if the other partner consents to the contract, then it is valid, and will control the implied contract.\nWas there any evidence in this case that the other partner, Broaddus, consented to the express contract between Edwards and the defendant ? Broaddus, who was examined as a witness, said that his partner, Edwards, had made the contract with defendant, and informed him ot it, and asked him if the mill of the partnership would furnish the lumber, and that he \u201cassented thereto.\u201d Edwards, who was also examined, said that Broaddus assented to the contract, and was to look to him, Edwards, to settle for the lumber with the firm. This evi-deuce ought to have been submitted to the jury, with proper-instructions, as tending to show that the partnership assented to the express contract made by Edwards and the defendant T and that the implied contract was controlled by the express contract.\nThere must be a venire de novo.\nPer Curiam. Venire de novo.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Read\u00ae. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Johnson, for the appellants.",
      "JElUord, contra,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "W. S. BROADDUS & S. W. EDWARDS, partners, &c. v. W. J. EVANS.\nIn an action for the value of lumber delivered by a firm, tlie acceptance thereof by the defendant is evidence of privity of contract between the parties.\n'One partner cannot, without the consent of his co-partner, agree to receive payment for goods sold by the firm in debts due by himself individually.\nAssumpsit, tried before Jones, J., at Pitt, Spring Term 1869.\nThe plaintiffs declared as partners, for the price of certain lumber by them delivered to the defendant.\nIt appeared upon the trial that the plaintiff Edwards, before he became a member of the firm, had contracted to \u25a0deliver a quantity of lumber to the defendant, in payment of .a debt due him. The lumber was being sawed at the mill then belonging to the plaintiff Broaddus, and before it was \u25a0entirely delivered the partnership was formed. Broaddus .agreed, at Edwards\u2019 instance, that the mill should continue to furnish lumber as before.\nEvans also agreed to receive the lumber as before \u2014 and it was delivered.\nThe partnership continued but a short time, and on its dissolution the effects were assigned to Broaddus, he agreeing to pay the debts.\nOn the account being presented to Evans, he claimed that it had been paid by a credit given to Evans, as by agreement. Broaddus thereupon denied having anything to do with paying Edwards\u2019 individual debts.\nThere was other evidence not material to be stated.\nHis Honor instructed the jury that there was no privity of \u2022contract between the parties to the suit.\nVerdict for the defendant. Rule, &c. Rule discharged. Judgment and Appeal by the plaintiffs.\nJohnson, for the appellants.\nJElUord, contra,"
  },
  "file_name": "0633-01",
  "first_page_order": 649,
  "last_page_order": 651
}