The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1895-12-17
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

Reported by Perrin Busbee, Esq. of the
Raleigh Bar
James T. Jones ct al vs.. Samuel Jones
(appellant, from Greene county.
Opinion by Clark, J.
The defendants, being in possession
of the land under bond to make title,
and having defaulted in their pay
ments. and the period within which
payments were to be made having ex-
pired. entered into an agreement with
the plaintiffs (who had acquired the
interest of the obligator to make title)
that they would pay rent for the years
1892 and 1898. Not having done 50,
this action is for the purpose of sub
iecting the crop of 1898 to the lien for
the stipulated rent for that year; Held,
that as the plaintiffs had the right to
demand possession of the premises. IT
was competent for them to agree with
the defendants that for the time speci-
fed the latter might remain in posses
sion as tenants paying rent; and II
such contract is oppressive, the relief
the defendants are entitled to is not
to have the contract declared void, but
no an equitable order directing that
the amount of rents SO paid should be
credited on the notes given for the
purchase money.
No error.
James O. Sutton vs.. John H. Philips
fpetitioner), from Lenoir county.
Opinion by Clark. j.
Where in an action to recover the
penalty for selling meats by weights
not tested by the standard keeper, the
Jury found that the defendant had
sold bv weights which had not been
examined and adjusted by the stand
ard keeper as required by statute;
Held. that such verdict is not incon-
sistent with an admission on appeal
that defendant had not been called on
by the keeper for such purpose. Hence,
as the defendant was not liable under
the statute until his refusal to allow
the keeper to seal ard stamp ms
weights, such Judgment against the
defendant will be reversed.
Petition allowed.
J. w. Moore ct al. vs.. W u. Jordan ct
al. tappeal by Lewis, from Edge
cornbe county. Opinion by Iair-
cloth, c. }.
Previously docketed judgments take
pro rata the after-acqnired lands OIL
the Judgment debtor, and not by their
priorities according to the date OF
docketing.
Clark and Avery. j., dissent.
II. M. Nimock VS.. Josiah Pope (appeal
by def. Hodges, from Cumberland
county. Opinion by Furches, J.
Where in an action of repleTin, III
which the defendant gave bond and re-
tanned the property in suit, a Jndg-
ment Was entered in accordance with
"a compromise by the parties, wherein
it was agreed that if the defendant
would file within certain time seeuf-
ed notes equal in amount TO the
amount of the judgment the plaintIff
would satisfy the Judgment of record;
Held.
/. That this is not a conditional
judgment
.. That the surety on the repleFy
bond is bound by such compromise en-
tered hy consent of both parties.
Affirmed.
Sarah A. Kornegay ct al VS.. +. ". hor-
negay ct al, from Duplin county.
Opinion by Furches, j.
]. Where, in an action brought by the
donee Oh will TO set aside deed TO
the land devised to him on the ground
that said deed, alleged to have been
executed by the devisor OF SAID wltl,
was a forgery, the defendant testified
as 10 the execution of the alleged deed,
it was not error to compel the defen-
dant. upon the cross-eXamlnatlon,
10 saw whether or not the signature to
the will was the genuine signature OF
the grantor in said alleged deed.
Q. Where a witness testifies that he
had been register of deeds for several
2 wears and that he had been engaged iii
the mercantile business many years
and was in the habit of comparing
hand writings; Held, that such person
is competent to testify whether or not
two signatures were written by the
same person
Affirmed.
j. w. Scott 81 Co, ct al vs.. y. Ballard
ct al (appellantsl from Guilford
county. Opinion by Montgomery. j.
Junior mortgages cannot compel the
assignees for the benefit OF creditors
of mortgage TO sell the mortgaged
land in numerous parcels, instead OF
in three tracts as conveyed in the mort
gage deed, Oh the grounds that the
land, il TINS subdivided and sold, would
bring more than if sold i'm three par
cells, and that they had made agree
lnent with the defendants to take pos
session under their mortgages and sell
in subdivisions: as such agreement was
in fact without consideration, it is i'm
material that they SO sold the land and
bought il in themselves, and have since
been unable to resell.
Reversed