The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-03-29
Supreme Court Digest.
(Reported by Jos. L. SeawolI)


HICKS Y. BARNES, appellant From
Vance New trial
Where one receives an infant whether
a relative or a stranger, as a member of
his family and treats him as such. with
no contract that the infant is to be
paid for services, the law implies no
such contract and an action to recover
for services rendered by the infant can
not be maintained Hudson V. Lutz. so
n. c. 2l7; Dodson V. McAdams, 90 n. C
l49; Young v Herman, 81 N. G. 149: Cal
lahan V. Wood, III N. c. 1852; Avitt v
Smith, 100 N. c. 1872
MURRAY EFT AL, appellant, v DARDEN.
Ext. From Sampson. Error.
Facts constituting defense under the
Statute of Limitations must be plainly
set forth in the pleadngs, otherwise the
plea will be held defective. Turner V.
Shufher, los N. c. 642 Lassiter V. Roper.
ia n. c. II; Heyer V. Rivenbark, 12S
n. c. 270.
Where a testator had been guardian of
his executor and of the executors broth
ers and sisters, and the executor had not
received as executor any part of the
guardianship funds, he may, in the abb
sence of fraud, purchase the interests
of the other wards.
A wife's interest in a legacy becomes
at her death the property of her hus-
band~ and his signature as her admins
traitor to receipt therefor is primo
facie proof that he was such administra-
tor
In an action against an executor to
recover an amount received by his tes-
tator as guardian, it is erroneous to de-
cree a sale OF the testator's land ia
pay the claim, when it does not appear
that such was the object of the ac-
ton
HAVENS, appellant, V. BANK OF TAR
BORO. From Edgecombe Reversed.
Where one of two innocent persons
must lose by the fraud of third per-
son, he, who has enabled the third per-
son to commit the fraud, must bear tho
loss.
A corporation is responsible for the
fraudulent acts of its agents while on
gagged in the business Of the agency to
the same extent and under the Same cir
cumstances that natural person is
chargeable with the fraud of his agent.
Where the president of bank signed
blank certificates of stock and left them
with the cashier to fill out in the names
OF the purchasers when they should call
for the same and the cashier fraudulent
ly issued one of the certificates to him-
self and assigned the same as security
for personal loan of money. the as
! signee having no notice of the fraud, it
was held that in default of payment of
the loan the assignee is entitled to have
hn ~
the stock of the bank has been issued
to the limit allowed, the assignee is en-
titled to recover the value OF the Ger
tiicate from the bank, and the banks
liability in such case is not affected by
the fact that the certificate provided
that the stock was transferable only on
the books of the bank.
HARRISON, appellant, V. GARRETT
From Halifax New trial
When evidence competent for one pur-
pose only is objected to in apt time, it
Is the duty Of the court to instruct the
jury how the evidence should be con-
stdered and applied by them
IN an action for libel based upon
letter from defendant to his agent where
IN defendant referred to plaintiff, who
was a Populist, as one "Who has risen
TO the top among the scum of the re-
cent political boil" and one from whom
"a few dollars would buy almost any sort
OF certificate" it was error to permit
defendants counsel, oveT- the objection
of plaintiff, to prove upon cross-examina-
ton Of plaintiffs witness, introduced to
prove malice, that there was a public
rumor that any man who affiliated with
the Populists was corrupt without tell
ing the jury for what purpose the evil
denco was introduced. While such evi-
dence may have been competent upor the
issue of damages, it was incompetent
upon all the ether issues and as to plain
tiff's character.
While the case was properly tried unon
the theory that defendants communica-
ton to mis- employee was one of qualified
privilege and as such protected hy law
Unless plaintiff could show malice in de-
PENDANT, evidence as to the public ru-
NOR in reference to those who affiliated
with the Populists did not tend TO dis
prove malice or to show the good faith
Of defendant, as it was not shown that
defendant knew of the rumor.
The failure to allege special damage
ia the complaint in an action for libel
based upon a publication not lbcllous
per Sc is held to be a defective state
ment of a good cause of action as dstin-
guishcd from statement Of defective
cause of action and that such defect