The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-04-12
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.
(Reported by Jos. l.. Seawell.)

(Reported by Jos. L. Seawell)
DURHAM DYEING co. VS.. HOSIERY co.
Affirmed.
Action to recover alleged balance due
for dyeing defendant goods. Defend
ant admitted the amount due under the
contract with plaintiff, but set up a coun-
ter claim on account of defective work
and in support of the counter claim of
fered a statement of account of sale of
defendants goods rendered by North
ern firm who purchased from defendant
for the purpose of proving loss on the
goods by reason of plaintiffs defective
dyeing: Held that such statement was
not admissible as evidence
HENDRICKS VS.. w. L. TELEGRAPH CO.
Affirmed.
Where a telegraph company receives
message for delivery and fails to deliv-
err it with reasonable diligence, it be-
comes prina facie liable and the burden
is upon it to allege and prove such facts
as it relies upon to excuse it's failure.
Sheriff. VS. Telegraph Company, 116 ~
c.. 655; III ~ c.. 352. What is due dill
gence or reasonable care is nearly if
not always, mixed question of law and
fact. They depend upon the relative facts
Of each case and come peculiarly within
the province of the jury
1t is the duty of a telegraph company
in all cases where it is practicable to do
SO, to promptly inform the sender when
a message cannot be delivered The
company's failure to do so may not be
negligence per Sc but is clearly evidence
of negligence.
BANK VS.. MOREHEAD. Error
After final decree in the Supreme
court fixing the liability Of a defendant
as obligor to a promissory note, and one
of the two ether signers of the note has
previously purchased it and had it as
signed for his benefit; Held competent for
the Superior court Judge to grant defend
ants motion to amend her answer that
an issue may be Joined as to whether the
signers of the note are co-principals be-
tween themselves.
RAWLINGS VS.. NEAL. Modified and af-
firmed.
Although Section 1926 of the Code en-
powers a married woman. without the
written consent of her husband, to charge
her seperate personal estate for her
necessary personal expenses or the sup
port of her family, the creditor in such
case will not be allowed to take posses
sion of the wfe's personal property to
satisfy his debt. but can only proceed
regularly through the courts for it's sat
isfaction, and Judgment therefor will be
a charge only upon the wifes separate
personal estate and she viii be entitled
to her exemptions.
Where a husband to secure supplies
furnished the wife TO cultivate a crop
upon her land fer the support of herself
and family, executes n lien upon the
wife's crop, the husband not acting as
the wife's agent, and after his death the
wife continues to receive supplies from
the MORTGAGE; Held that the lien is
void, the wife not having joined in the
same; and Their '>~'>r no evidence of
fraud on the part of the wife and no
proof that the husband contracted for
the supplies as the wifes agent, her con-
tinuing to receive supplies from the mort
gage after the husbands death was no
ratification of his cast.
Where in such case, the mortgage
seized the wife's crop under claim and
delivery proceeding and sold it 10 salts
fy his lien, the wife is entitled to recover
the full value of the crop Sold and the
trial judge committed error in ruling that
the amount to be thus recovered by the
wife was subject to a charge of the
amount of supplies received by her after
the husbands death.
BANK OF TARBORO VS.. FIDELITY AND
DEPOSIT co. Error.
Where, in an action upon penal bond,
the answer of defendant raises pleas
in bar, which if found in defendants fa-
vor will defeat the action; a compulsory