Case ID: nc_4-2/html/0211-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Seawelx, J*", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

T. D. KING, ADMINISTRATOR of STEPHEN KING, deceased, against HILL.
    THIS was an action of trover, brought by the Plaintiff, to recpver the three negroes mentioned in a bill sale frop Defendant to Plaintiff’s intestate, which is drawn in the usual form; to which Plaintiff, T. D. King, was a subscribing witness, and on which, there was the following endorsement: “ The condition of the within “ bill of sale is such, that if, the said Hill, within nine “ months from the date thereof, pay over to the said S. r J King the purchase money therein named, then to be “ v*id and of no e.fftet, otherwise the said King-.to have ‘‘full power and authority to sell the property at public ,7 . r . . ' ’ , . , e i i , . auction, first giving ten days notice thereof, and make “ himself whole.” '
    ' The statute of Usury was- pleaded, and the weight evidence in support of the plea was clearlv in favour ■ ‘ , , ' t . . the Defendant. The Jury, however, found a verdict for the Plaintiff, and valued the negroes sued for to $1150.
    When the bill of sale was read by the Plaintiff, the Defendant offered, as evidence, the endorsement upon it. This was Objected to by the Plaintiff. The .Court permitted it to be read. A motion was made for a new trial; which is referred, to the Supreme Court. It is also^r^ferred to them,, Whether, in case there be ,a new ^pal, the deed shall bé read as evidence ? They áre both ih the handwriting of the subscribing witness, now th$ Plaintiif* ,
    
      wiieretUe of^Vnisi'ili'e we.ght of e-c;ise « here ty Hcommit. pe|.so"llf wiiosegavnr they fine];— where ul o, tl,cr8 "Vff exist a clifference ofopin-,on. 3„⅛ » .where it is certain, that of⅞nC,i,,*,',**_ ¡eCom-twili-no. grant a mv/trial tip-on ü.e bare )L) b , ^ tract is «stí
   Seawelx, J*

This being a case where the Jury decided against the weight of evidence, not of a flagrant violation of duty, but where there may, reasonably, be a difference of opinion amongst honest men ; and it being quite certain that they have done justice, this Court feels it unsafe to interpose, upon the bare probability that the contract was usurious*

Hall, J. Lowrie, J, and Daniel, J. concurred» Ruffin, J. dissented.