{
  "id": 8681192,
  "name": "C. C. KESSLER v. J. W. HALL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kessler v. Hall",
  "decision_date": "1870-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "60",
  "last_page": "62",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 N.C. 60"
    }
  ],
  "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": 241,
    "char_count": 2924,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.378,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.2960107901521397e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8716044835046367
    },
    "sha256": "338365d39072828939931085c143a9d4d83b0ef60fb527fe514af66755484197",
    "simhash": "1:bba6b0c2bcc8c5a7",
    "word_count": 522
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:28:35.890237+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. C. KESSLER v. J. W. HALL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Settle, J.\nThe defence attempted to be set up, discloses the fact that the bond upon which this action is brought, was executed by the defendant to an attorney for advice and assistance in managing the estate of defendant\u2019s testator. Of course then, it is the individual debt of the defendant, and the action is properly brought; had it been brought against him as executor, it could not have been maintained.\nIt is said in Hailey v. Wheeler, 4 Jon. 159, \u201cit is not possible to conceive how a debt of the testator can he created by matter occurring wholly in the executor\u2019s time. If an executor makes an express contract in reference to the property of the estate, as if he employ one to cry the sale .of the property, as auctioneer, this is not a debt of the testator.\u201d The same point is ruled in McKay & Devane v. Royal and wife, 7 Jon. 426, which, like this, was an action to recover for the professional services of the plaintiffs, who, as attorneys, had advised and counselled the executrix.\nIn a still later case, Beaty v. Gingles, et al. Ex\u2019rs, 8 Jon. 302, the eases just cited are quoted with approbation, and they folly establish the doctrine that the defendant is personally liable on a contract like the one before us. The evidence offered by the defendant was properly rejected by his Honor. It is a general rule that parol evidence is inadmis-isable to contradict or vary the terms of a written contract; \u2022and while the ordinance of Oct. 18th 1865, and the acts of 1866, ch. 38 and 39 have changed this rule of evidence in certain cases, they have no application to the case before us.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Settle, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "JB. Crcdge and R. A. Caldwell for the appellant.",
      "Blackmer & McCorkle, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. C. KESSLER v. J. W. HALL.\nA note given by an executor to an attorney for counsel in Ms office as executor, is payable by tlie maker personally, and not, as executor. Parol evidence of an understanding that it was to be paid out of the testator\u2019s assets only, is not admissible.\n(Hailey v. Wheeler, 4 Jon. 159, McKay v. Royal, 7 lb. 426, Beaty v. Gingles, 8 Ib. 302, cited and approved.)\nDebt, tried before Cloud, J., at Eall Term 1869, Rowan court.\nThe note upon which the action was brought was as follows:\n\u201c Six months after elate, with interest from date, we promise to pay James E. Kerr or order, twelve hundred and fifty dollars,, for value received, witness our hands and seals, Nov. 27 1860.\u201d\nThis was signed and sealed hy the defendant; and the plaintiff was endorsee and purchaser for value.\nThe defendant offered to prove that the note was given for professional services rendered to defendant as executor of Solomon Hall deceased, and was due from him as executor, and not in his individual capacity, and that the understanding was that said note was to be paid out of the assets of said estate.\nThis evidence was rejected by the court. Yerdict and judgment for the plaintiff: Appeal by the defendant.\nJB. Crcdge and R. A. Caldwell for the appellant.\nBlackmer & McCorkle, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0060-01",
  "first_page_order": 84,
  "last_page_order": 86
}