Court Opinion

ID: 9883490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:43:42.715723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:23.869165
License: Public Domain

Bobbitt, J.,
dissenting: A verdict is interpreted by reference to the pleadings, the evidence and the judge’s charge. Jernigan v. Jernigan, 226 N.C. 204, 37 S.E. 2d 493.
Defendant claimed the tobacco seized by him by virtue of a chattel mortgage executed by plaintiff’s wife. Defendant had no chattel mortgage executed by plaintiff.
The complaint contains no allegation that the defendant’s seizure of plaintiff’s tobacco was wrongful because it occurred before the debt became due. The sole theory of the complaint, as I read it, is that the defendant had no lien at all on plaintiff’s tobacco. Evidently this was plaintiff’s contention at the trial. This excerpt from the charge epitomizes the instructions given by the court relating to the first issue: “If you find from the evidence and by its greater weight that the tobacco in question that was taken belonged to Robert McNeill, then the first *262issue should be answered in Robert McNeill’s favor, unless you find that Robert McNeill is estopped now to claim that tobacco, or the proceeds of that tobacco, or its value.” The jury having answered the first issue “no,” the only conclusion that I can reach is that the jury found that the defendant had no lien on the plaintiff’s tobacco. On this first issue, the crucial question for the jury arose on the defendant’s plea of estoppel.
Furthermore, on the second issue the judge charged the jury: “If you find from the evidence and by its greater weight that Mr. Mc-Dougald knew that the tobacco in question was the property of Robert McNeill, and knew that he had no claim to it, but took the tobacco in an effort to force Robert McNeill to assume and pay for the debts of his wife, or Henry Burney, or otherwise acted in a wanton and reckless disregard of the rights of Robert McNeill, then you should answer the second issue yes.” (Italics added.) On the second issue the crucial question was whether the defendant knew that he had no lien on the plaintiff’s tobacco.
The court made no reference at all in his instructions bearing on the first and second issues to whether plaintiff’s wife’s debt had matured when the defendant seized the plaintiff’s tobacco.
The only reference I can find in the charge to the fact that the seizure of the plaintiff’s tobacco occurred before plaintiff’s wife’s debt matured is included in this summary of the court of plaintiff’s contentions in relation to the fourth (punitive damage) issue. “McNeill contends that under all the facts and circumstances in the case you should take into consideration the fact, if it was a fact, that the Claim and Delivery Proceeding was taken out before the lien ioas due, and that Mr. McDougald had no legal right to take it out; that you should further take into consideration what he contends to be a fact that he, Robert McNeill, had refused to sign the mortgage, or lien, and that Mr. McDougald knew that, and that he still took his, McNeill’s, property under process of the Court without any proper cause or right.” (Italics added.)
If the defendant knew the tobacco belonged to the plaintiff, and seized it under color of claim and delivery proceedings against the plaintiff’s wife, without making the plaintiff a party to such proceedings, it would seem that the fact that her debt was not even due was a circumstance properly to be considered, along with the other circumstances relevant to the fourth issue.
In my opinion, G.S. 44-63, which presupposes the existence of a valid lien, had no bearing on the issues raised by the pleadings and answered by the jury under the instructions of the court.