Court Opinion

ID: 9807893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:18:58.97447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:11.719155
License: Public Domain

*21Walker, J.,
dissenting:
"We think that there is at least some evidence that W. S. Eiddick knew of the sealed instruments — the note ahd the lien — for there were two of them signed and sealed alike. D. M. Wind-ley, Melson Windley, and W. S. Eiddick were parties in the business. D. M. Windley bought the fertilizers in 1910 and executed the papers under a seal to his own name as agent for the firm and one of the members of it. He then “turned the farm over to Eiddick,” who superintended it after that time, and when he received it, D. M. Windley told him that he had executed “these," papers for the firm — the note and the lien. There were no other papers answering the description but those now in question. Eiddick paid money on the note. He further testified, “Mr. Eiddick knew about the execution of these papers by me and why they were executed for the firm.” Eiddick paid money to a large amount that year on the note, and it would he strange if he did not require the production of the note and lien so that the proper credit should he entered on them, or at least on the note. This is the usual and almost universal way of doing such business by prudent men.
O. P. Aycock also testified that Eiddick knew of the execution of the papers at the time he made the payment. There is no contention, and cannot be, that the witnesses were referring to any other papers than the note and lien. Eiddick testified that he did not know that Windley had bought the guano and executed the papers for it. He contradicted the other witnesses, but this conflict in testimony was for the jury, and not for the court to settle. The jury could well draw the inference from what Windley and Aycock had testified, that Eiddick had seen the papers, or that their contents, including the seal, had been called to his attention. When we speak of one having knowledge of the existence of a thing we thereby impute to him knowledge also of its nature and characteristics or of its component parts.
If the witnesses had said that he knew that a note and lien had been given, there might be room to contend that it was not evidence as to knowledge of a seal, but those are not the words, and definite reference was made to these very papers that had the seals annexed to the name of Windley.
We have sustained verdicts on less evidence more than once. Direct evidence is not required, but the matter may be left to fair inference by the jury. It would be strange and unusual that a man should conduct important operations for months under written instruments and not ask to see them or not know their contents. It would be a' very loose way to transact business and should not be inferred unless upon clear proof of the fact. Juries may take such matters into consideration and draw their conclusions therefrom in connection with other facts. His denial that he had been told of the papers at all, in the face of the testi*22mony of two credible witnesses, was not favorable to him. Even tbougb evidence be slight, if a fair inference can be drawn from it of the existence of the fact to be proved, it should go to the jury. S. v. Fanning, 94 N. C., 940. It is not insufficient because it is weak. S. v. Kiger, 115 N. C., 746. And those were criminal cases. But this case is taken out of the realm of conjecture by the definite reference to "these papers”— that is, those in controversy. There can be no doubt that the defendant justly owes the debt. The jury so found, and there was no exception by him.