The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1900-10-16
reported for News and Observer
l.. SeawelID

BOND VS.. CASHIE & Chow.
ROAD AND LUMBER CO.. "".-
in both appeals.
The words in a deed TO land
he pine timber suitable for r..
which / hereby reserve Will.
mill, or my children" coustir-.
walton extinct after the life Of ...
tor. Whitfield VS.. Smith. . T..
36: Roberts VS.. Forsythe. q .
%.
The words in a deed TO Lam.
the good heart timber suitalI.
timber" constitute an eNCert..-
a reservation.
HOLLOMAN VS.. HOLLCNAN. r..
Where. in an action fer disar..
ct thoro. the plaintiff files .r
complaint praying for a divur.. . ..
the amended complaint is ia...-.
the plaintiff fails 10 file thpr....
afldavit required by Section 1857
Code. Notwithstanding such af......
filed with the original comr-a..
In this case the plaiutiu ..
to move for judgment below .
original complaint.
HAHN VS.. HEATH. Affirmed
Upon the ov%erruiing Of Il r..r F..
the larty's failure 10 appeal -..-..
will not be deemed as wa.v.l. .....
ception thereto. where tho .V..r.... ...
noted and appeal was not i.1an .
fnal judgment.
A mortgage upon prospective ,rr-- . -
be limited TO the crop next following ...
conveyance. Wooten vs.. Hi. Us
%: Loftin vs.. Hines 1o7 y. G. e..
A mortgage executed in %.E....
1896. upon 'all the cr0rs cs cs-.ur .
and other products to be raised" on ....
tain land sufficiently described. and ...
to secure a note due in October is-
not void under the rule in I.r. .
Hines, supra. and is held 10 Doc s....
uuon the crops to be raised io }..-
not those already matared. Tay.u,
Hodges. 105 n. c. 344.
RAWLS VS.. WHITE. Error rs TO ..-
Where husband and wife. neither 0t
whom could read or write. endorsed
note belonging to the Wife and q .lF.r.I.
it to the husbands creditor and the Ura.
tor gave them a receipt therefor Na.I
stated that the note was TO be applied
in satisfaction of n joint mor;gaEa from
the husband and wife upon the wf..
land to secure q debt of the husband uH.
the balance of the wife's note was go 81.
applied in payment of a "store acooun
uut 10y Tie lluSDdiii, IltIt liIdA lH' mus
bands endorsement with that Of Oh.
wife, constituted his written consent
within the meaning of the Constitution
Jennings vs.. Hinton. 126 n. G. is. lNa'-
ton VS.. Bristol, 12o \. c. 80, diat.u-
~9uished).
In such case, where the wife seeks tn
recover the balance of the note applied
to the husbands 'SIOre account, alley
ing the agreement of the husbands cred
itor to pay her such balance and hir
ignorance OF the contents of the crcdi-
tors receipt, and seeking to enioin lhe
creditor from selling the lane aOrtgagel
the wife having admitted her endors.-
ment upon the note belonging TO her
and having introduced the receipt given
therefor. is bound by the terms of The
recent, which charges the balance Of her
note in the hands of the husbands crrdi-
tor. But the feme plaintiff, having suo-
cceded 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 I'm
this State, who solicits, by the sample.
orders for retail quantities Of goods TO Doe
shipped by the principal-the agent using
a horse and buggy in soliciting-is Liable
to the license tax provided by Section 81
Of Chapter 11S N. G.. 32S.
BAZEMORE VS.. BYNUM. New trial.
In consideration of a deed to land from
Martha A. Lassiter to defendant, the do
endant, in 1895. entered into a bond
for $500, with said Lassiter, condl Toned
upon his providing n 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 10 pal
her, and the witness testifying 10 this
was called upon to bear witness to de-
fendants promise; that defendant 81 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 morton was a.-
lowed and plaintiff excepted and appca.
ed.
Held, error. The evidence Of the breach
OF the defendants bono was sufficient
and the defendants contention that the
subsequent agreement between the doe
1endant and Mrs. Lassiter was a uru
covenant, cannot be sustained. The CAS-.
should have gone to the jury.