The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-05-05

! capacity to make the conveyance. Gary
VS.. Clary "a n. c. rs.
The Judges instruction that mind
! capable of making a contract WAS one
! that had sufficient intelligence to linder
| stand what he was doing, what property
! he was disposing Of and TO whom he
| was conveying it. and the capacity to
| know who are excluded by the convey
ance, was not prejudicial to the gran
| tees in the conveyance, which this action
attempts to set aside by reason of the
! grantor's mental incapacity.
ADAMS VS.. POPE. Affirmed.
Plaintiff sold land to defendant and re-
| ceived in part payment two notes from
| one Johnson to defendant. Before plain
tiff accepted the notes. he was warned by
| Johnson that he would probably not pay.
them. but the plaintiff accepted the notes
| in part payment of the land upon a writ
ten agreement by defendant, which, after
reciting the consideration. provided that
| if plaintiff would accept the notes of
Johnson, endorsed by defendant without
recourse" the defendant would take up
the notes upon Johnson's refusal to pay
! them and would pay the said Andrews
| plaintif) the amount of the same and
| have the Johnson notes transferred back
/ to me-" Defendant endorsed the notes to.
| plaintiff without recourse and upon
| JohnsCn's refusal TO pay them, the plain
| tiff demanded payment of defendant;
| Held, that defendants agreement was
guaranty and binds him to payment of
the notes to plaintiff. Notwithstanding his
endorsement without recourse"
|
4 proceeding TO compel County Su-
| perintenden of Public School to endorse
| for the payment of teachers salary is
not "a money demand" and the remedy
i was properly sought through an applica-
| ton for mandamus. before the Superior
| Court Judge at Chambers.
| BROWN VS. SOUTHERN RAFLWAL co
Affirmed
| Plaintiff was d fireman on defendants
engine and the engineer received orders
| that an extra having engine No. "a had
the right of track over his train from
Greensboro to Lexington, but was not
notified of any other extra train. When
plaintiffs train (going North reached
Lexington, in the night time, he an
extra train standing on the side-track,
and the engine to this train was No. Ga.
Inc eHSlHeeT anu the pldlullu uOI having
been informed of this extra train, mis-
took the number GA upon the engine for
"a, the train they expected to meet at
Lexington and without stopping their
train they soon colided with the train
they had been ordered to wait for Plain
tiff was injured and sues to recover dam
ages, alleging negligence on the part of
defendant in failing to inform the plain
nj
engine GA; Held, that there was no negli-
gence on the part of defendant and plain
tiff cannot recover.
CARTER VS. w. & w. r. r. co. Affirmed.
A refusal by defendant s agent to re-
ceive of plaintiff for transportation 80
head of cattle, which were offered by
plaintiff as one shipment, subjects de-
PENDANT to the payment of the penalty of
$50 provided for by Section 1864 of The
Code for each animal so refused, and
these penalties may be recovered in one
action in which both, plaintiffs sue jointly
The penalties imposed by Section 1864
may, under the provisions of Section 1912
of The Code be recovered by any one
suing for the same Branch VS.. Railroad
Il n. C. 347; Katzenstein VS.. Railroad, 81
n c. 6SS), and where the State is i'm
properly JOlHed do d pldlillH III ouNil az
ton. it is harmless error.
SLOAN VS.. c. c. r. r. co. Error.
Warlck had a contract with Henrietta
Cotton Mills for the purchase of cotton,
and endorsed a draft upon the treasurer
of the mills, with bill of lading at
tached, to the plaintiff for value. The bill
of laden was drawn ito order, notify S.
B. Tanner treasurer. The complaint
alleges that defendant wrongfully and
carelessy permitted the Henrietta Mills
to examine the cotton without producing
the bill of lading, in consequence where's
of the mills refused to accept the cot
ton and pay the draft, as it otherwise
would have done that defendant retained
part of the cotton unloaded, without noti-
fying plaintiff of the refusal of the mills
to accept it. and wrongfully required
plaintiff to pay 800 demurrage, and plain
tiff sues to recover SS42 damages
Defendants demurrer, for that it was
not wrongful to permit the mills to ex-
anime the cotton. that the complaint
shows no actionable injury done the plain
tiff or that the requirement of payment
of demurrage was wrongful, was sus-
tanned.
Held no error in sustaining the de-
murrer on the ground that actionabe
injury resulted to plaintiff by reason of