Case ID: nc_201/html/0088-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Stagy, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. H. STOCKTON v. H. R. LENOIR, Trustee.
    (Filed 15 June, 1931.)
    Trial I) a — Judgment as of nonsuit in favor of party ui>on whom was the burden of proof held error.
    Where upon the evidence and admissions of record the defendant may show by parol evidence that plaintiff’s commissions as selling agent were to be confined to payment out of notes given the principal as a part of the purchase price of the lands sold, the burden of proof is upon the defendant, and his motion as of nonsuit on the plaintiff’s evidence should be denied. (See 8. o., 198 N. C., 148.)
    Appeal by plaintiff from MacRae, Special Judge, at November Term, 1930, of MacoN.
    Civil action to recover commissions on sale of real estate, evidenced by two notes, each containing the following stipulation: “To be paid out of funds from corresponding note of W. D. Almazov and Sophie Albert, when collected.”
    • At the close of plaintiff’s evidence judgment as in ease of nonsuit was entered on motion of defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals, assigning error.
    
      George B. Patton, Edwards & Leakherwood and R. D. Sislc for plaintiff.
    
    
      T. J. Johnston and Moody & Moody for defendant.
    
   Stagy, C. J.

The facts aré fully set out in the first appeal as reported in 198 N. C., 148, 150 S. E., 886, to which reference may be had to avoid repetition.

We there held that, while the stipulation appearing on the face of each of the notes did not ipsissimis verbis provide for payment exclusively out of funds to be collected from corresponding note of the purchasers, . Almazov and Albert, yet, in view of the allegations of the answer, taken in connection with the stipulations appearing in the notes, it was open to tbe defendant to sbow by parol, .if be could, tbat sucb was tbe understanding of tbe parties. Unless tbe defendant is able to establish tbis under tbe principles announced in Bank v. Winslow, 193 N. C., 470, 137 S. E., 320, Typewriter Co. v. Hardware Co., 143 N. C., 97, 55 S. E., 417, and Evans v. Freeman, 142 N. C., 61, 54 S. E., 847, he will not be in position to resist an adverse verdict.

With tbe defendant thus required to handle tbe laboring oar, it was error to nonsuit on tbe plaintiff’s evidence.

Reversed.