The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1900-10-30
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
CReported by JOS. l.. Seawell.l
WHITFIELD VS.. FUOUAY. New trial.

WHITFIELD VS.. FUOUAY. New trial.
Any knowledge of a fact, truth of which
may be ascertained by a proper inquiry,
is notice to the party and will deprive
him of equities arising for the want of
such notice. l James VS.. Gardner, SO N.
c., 800.
Specific performance of a contract for
the sale of land, though an equitable re-
lief, will be enforced as a matter of course
where a valid legal contract is establish
Cd, devoid of fraud and unfair advantage.
} Pomeroy Eq. Jur., Sec. 1902; 121 \. c.,
251.
AXE VS.. CARTER. Action dismissed.
Where, in an action against the wife
End son of a deceased debtor to nave his
deed declared void as to creditors, while
the cause is pending upon defendants
demurrer upon the ground that no cause
Of action was shown in the complaint, the
administrator of deceased debtor and 9TH
cr of his creditors are made plaintiffs
and the ~pleadirgs are reformed SO as to
turn the action into "a creditors bill, s"
and the original plaintiff takes a non-suit
and WithdraWS from the action; Held,
that the Superior Court had no jurisdic-
ton and the action is dismissed. The
creditors remedy was by special pro-
ceeding before the clerk. 80 n. c., 455;
81 n. c., 176; ~ n. c., 626; 60 n. c., sc.
CANTWELL VS.. HERRING. Affirmed.
The Superior Court has inherent dis
Cretionary power to allow amendment 10
pIeadings or to allow them to be filed at
any time, unless prohibited by statute,
or unless vested rights are interfered
with.
TAYLOR VS.. BREWER. New trial.
In an action against a mortgagee for
wrongful sale and conversion of mort
gagged property, the defendant has a right
to prove upon the trial that the plaintiff
mortgagor delivered the property to the
defendant mortgagee's attorney to be sold
and the pcoraeds applied to the mortgage
debt.
COBB VS.. PERRY. New trial.
When there is more than a s~cintilla Of
evidence about which reasonable minds
NAV differ the question should be submit
ted to the jury.
In this action to have defendant de-
clared a trustee for the benefit of plain
tits, plaintiffs alleging that the land was
conveyed to defendant to pay off incum-
brances thereon and then defendant to
divide the land between plainrffs, the
trial Judge ruled that upon the evidence
of plaintiffs they could not recover. me
court hold that the evidence, To the elecI
that defendant had stated his purpose to
be to disincumber the land and divide 1t
among the plaintiffs; that ne had promls-
ed one of the plaintiffs to give her "a
right to her interest," and had afterwards
promised this plaintiff to buy her a home,
did not warrant the trial judge in taking
the case from the jury and a new trial
is awarded.
BELL VS.. COMMISSIONERS OF
STON COUNTY. No error.
Counties, being a branch OF the State
government, can be sued only III causes
authorized by statute, and an action can
not be maintained against the county
commissioners to recover the penalty
prescribed by section III of The Code, tor
failure to establish hospitals under sec
ton 1O7 (22) of The Code. 126 n. e., 9oo;
% N. c., .; 90 n. c., 437.
POTTER VS.. WHITE. Error.
In this action to have a deed, absolute
on its face, declared a mortgage, the
trial iudge committed error in excluding
defendants evidence to the effect that
tho deed was not intended by the parties
10 be a mortgage; that the redemption
clause had not been omitted by ignorance,
mistake. etc, and that plalntn1 occupied
the land as defendants tenant.