The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-10-13
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
(Reported for News and Observer by Jos.
L. Seawell.)

BOND VS.. CASHIE & CHOWAN RAIL-
ROAD AND LUMBER co. Affirmed
in both appeals
The words in deed to land. "except
the pine timber suitable for mill timber
which 1 hereby reserve while 1 hold the
mill, or my children constitute reser-
walton extinct after the life of the gran
tor. Whitfield VS.. Smith, 2 Jones Law.
36; Roberts VS.. Forsythe, 3 Dev Law.
26.
The words in a deed to land, "except
the good heart timber suitable for mill
timber" constitute an exception and not
a reservation.
HOLLOMAN VS.. HOLLOMAN. Error.
Where, in an action for divorce mensa
ct thoro, the plaintiff files an amended
complaint praying for divorce a vnculo,
the amended complaint is imperative if
the plaintiff fails to file Herewith the
affidavit required by Section 1887 of The
Code, Notwithstanding such affidavit was
filed with the original complaint
In this case the plaintiff is entitled
to move for judgment below upon the
original complaint.
HAHN VS.. HEATH. Affirmed.
Upon the overruling of plea in bar
the party's failure to appeal therefrom
will not be deemed as waving his ex-
ception thereto, where the exception was
noted and appeal was not taken until
final judgment.
A mortgage upon prospective crops will
be limited to the crop next following the
conveyance. Wooten VS.. Hill, % N. c.
So; Loftin VS.. Hines 1O7 N. C. $50.
A mortgage executed in November,
1885, upon "all the crops of cotton, corn
and other products to be raised on GER
tain land sufficiently described, and given
to secure a note due in October, 1897, is
not void under the rule in Loftin VS..
Hines, supra, and is held to be given
upon the crops to be raised in 1897 and
not those already matured. Taylor VS..
Hodges, 1O5 N c. 344.
RAWLS vs. WHITE. Error as to COSTS
Where husband and wife, neither of
whom could read or write, endorsed q
note belonging to the wife and delivered
it to the husbands creditor and the credi-
tor gave them a receipt therefor which
stated that the note was to be applied
in satisfaction Of joint mortgage from
the husband and wife upon the wife's
land to secure a debt OF the husband and
the balance Of the wife's note was to be
applied in payment of a "store account"
due by the husband; Held that the hus-
bands endorsement with that of the
wife, constituted his written consent"
within the meaning of the Constitution.
Jennings VS.. Hinton, 126 N. c. AZ. oval
ton VS.. Bristol, 125 N. c. $40, distin-
guished).
In such case, where the wife seeks to
recover the balance of the note applied
to the husbands "store account" alleg
ing the agreement of the husbands cred.
itor to pay her such balance and her
ignorance of the contents of the credi-
tors receipt, and seeking to enjoin the
creditor from selling the land mortgaged,
the wife having admitted her endorse
ment upon the note belonging to her
and having introduced the receipt given
therefor, is bound by the terms of the
receipt, which charges the balance of her
note in the hands of the husbands credi-
tor. But the feme plaintiff, having sue
ceeded in her cause of action to have
the mortgage upon her land Cancelled, was
entitled to costs against the defend
ant.
STATE VS.. FRANKS. Affirmed.
An agent of a principal residing in
this State, who solicits. by the sample,
orders for retail quantities of goods to be
shipped by the principal-the agent using
a horse and buggy in soliciting-is liable
to the license tax provided by Section %
Of Chapter 11S N. c. 1928.
BAZEMORE VS.. BYNUM. New trial.
In consideration OF deed to land from
Martha A. Lassiter to defendant, the de-
PENDANT, in 1895, entered into a bond
for 5000, with said Lassiter, conditioned
upon his providing a home and food for
her as long as she should live. Said
Lassiter died in 1898 and her executor
brings this action upon the defendants
bond. There was evidence that said Las
sitter stated, in the presence of DEFEND
ant, that she had left his house and that
defendant admitted that this was true;
that at the same time she urged her
claim upon defendant for the amount Of
the bond and that he promised to pay
her, and the witness testifying to this
was called upon to bear witness to de-
PENDANTS promise; that defendant alt that
time paid said Lassiter $50, which was
credited by the witness upon the bond
Upon this evidence of plaintiff, the de-
PENDANT moved to non-suit plaintiff under
the Act of 1897, which motion was al
lowed and plaintiff excepted and appeal
ed
Held, error. The evidence Of the breach
of the defendants bond was sufficient,
and the defendants contention that the
subsequent agreement between the de-
PENDANT and Mrs. Lassiter was a new
covenant, cannot be sustained The case
should have gone to the jury.
Do not get scared if your'heart troubles
you. Most likely you suffer from indigcs
ton. Kodol Dyspepsia Cure digests what
you eat and gives the worn out stomach
perfect rest 1t is the only preparation
known that completely digests all classes
of foods; that is why it cures the worst
cases of indigestion and stomach trouble
after everything else has failed. 1t may
be taken in all conditions and cannot help
but do you good. Bobbitt Wynne Drug
Co.. VIM. Simpson
MMWN,@NWANW%NN|NND
{ One Dose {