Court Opinion

ID: 9807997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:24:04.614319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:04.747040
License: Public Domain

Deviit, J.,
concurs in the result, but is of opinion that appellant’s assignment of error as to the judgment should have been sustained upon the ground that the portion of the judgment which authorized execution against the person was predicated upon an issue which was not in accord with the language of the previous judgment in the cause requiring that the “issue of fraud arising on the pleadings be submitted to a jury.” the complaint alleged a fraudulent misappropriation and conversion of property, and in the decision of this case on a former appeal it was adjudged that the plaintiff was entitled to “trial by jury of the issue of fraud arising on the pleadings.”
In Ledford v. Emerson, 143 N. C., 527, it was said: “Tbe Constitution provides 'there shall be no imprisonment for debt in this State, except in cases of fraud.’ Art. I, sec. 16. This, we think, clearly means that there shall at least be no imprisonment to enforce tbe payment of a debt under final process, unless it bas been adjudged, upon an allegation duly made in tbe complaint and a corresponding issue found by a jury, that there bas been fraud. . . . There should be a separate and distinct issue submitted to tbe jury as to any fraud alleged. . . . Tbe constitutional right of trial by jury shields tbe defendant from arrest under an execution against bis person, unless in actions of debt an issue of fraud bas been found against him and a judgment entered in conformity therewith.”
In Doyle v. Bush, 171 N. C., 10 (citing Ledford v. Emerson, supra), it was held that tbe refusal to submit tbe issue of fraudulent conversion was tbe denial of a substantial right, if tbe pleadings raised tbe issue.
In Organ Co. v. Snyder, 147 N. C., 271, tbe issue was: “Did tbe defendant wrongfully and fraudulently convert to bis own use property of plaintiff?” Tbe trial judge instructed tbe jury to answer tbe issue “ETo.” This Court, in awarding a new trial, said: “The plaintiff resorted to tbe ancillary proceedings of arrest and bail, and in order to *658entitle him to execution against the person it was incumbent upon it to secure an affirmative answer to the first issue.”
In Guano Co. v. Southerland, 175 N. C., 228, the issue was: “Did the defendant knowingly and willfully misappropriate and misapply” the property of the plaintiff? In Boykin v. Maddrey, 114 N. C., 90, the issue was: “Have the defendants embezzled and fraudulently appropriated to their own use” property of plaintiffs?
While it has been held that in an action for fraudulent conversion the question of intent is not material when a breach of trust is established (Organ Co. v. Snyder, 147 N. C., 271; Gossler v. Wood, 120 N. C., 69; and Fertilizer Co. v. Little, 118 N. C., 808), in the instant case, in the light of the fact that the allegation of fraudulent conversion in the complaint, denied in the answer, raised an issue of fraud which the court had adjudged should be submitted to the jury, in my opinion the judgment improperly authorized the imprisonment of the defendant upon an affirmative answer to the issue submitted, “Did the defendant retain and convert to his own use in violation of the terms of his contract of consignment with the plaintiff” property of plaintiff?
I am authorized to say that Me. Justice Olaeksoh joins in this opinion.