TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Merritt Milling Co. v. Finlay

The MERRITT MILLING COMPANY v. ROBERT T. FINLAY Et Al.

Merritt Milling Co. v. Finlay, 15 S.E. 4 (N.C. 1892)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 5, 1892
Judges
Clark
Citations
15 S.E. 4110 N.C. 411
Headnotes
Slander — Counter-claim.—Pleading—Judgment—Appeal. 1. Damages for slander cannot be set up as a counter-claim to an action for debt. 2. Where, upon such plea, on the intimation of the Court an appeal was - taken: Held, the appeal was premature. 3. An appeal lies only from a judgment.
Summary
This was a civil ACTION tried atibe December Term, 1891, of BuNCOMBE Superior Court by Merrimon, J. The plaintiff sued for the amount of a debt.. The defendants pleaded as defence a counter-claim for damages for slander of the business. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Clark

Clark, J.:

It is not necessary that we consider whether there was any evidence sufficient to go to the jury to support defendants’ counter-claim, for we concur with his Honor that the slander charged as the basis thereof was not a counter-claim that could be pleaded to this action.

The plaintiff complains that the defendants being indebted to it, accepted a draft drawn on them by the plaintiff and have failed to pay it. The defendants allege that the plaintiff slandered them as to their pecuniary standing, and injured their credit and business, and,seek damages therefor by way of counter-claim. This did not arise out of contract,-and therefore could not be pleaded under sub-section 2 of section 244 of The Code;

nor could it be pleaded under the first sub-section thereof, because it did not “arise out of the contract or transaction which was the ground of the plaintiff’s claim,” nor was it “ connected with the subject of the action”— the contract made by the acceptance of plaintiff’s draft.

Byerly v. Humphrey, 95 N. C., 151 .

The record states that, upon the intimation of the Court, “ the defendants submitted to a non-suit upon their counterclaim, excepted and appealed.” The appeal was premature, and would not lie till after a final judgment upon the plaintiff’s cause of action.

Walker v. Scott, 106 N. C., 56 ;

Cameron v. Bennett, ante, 277.

It also did not lie because an appeal only lies from a judgment, and no judgment of any kind appears in the record.

Taylor v. Bostic, 93 N. C , 415 ;

Cameron v. Bennett, supra; State v. Hazell, 95 N. C., 623. This was probably an inadvertence, as the defendants admitted the acceptance was due when sued on and had not been paid, and relied solely upon the counter-claim 'by way of defence. We have, therefore, *413 passed upon the point intended to be presented, as has been sometimes, though rarety, done by the Court upon sufficient cause to justify it.

McBryde v. Patterson, 78 N. C., 412 ;

State v. Lockyear, 95 N C., 638;

State v. Divine, 98 N. C., 778 ;

Guilford County v. Georgia Company, 109 N. C., 310 .

Appeal dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 23 cases

View all citing references →
1895: 21896: 11900: 11901: 11902: 11909: 11911: 11914: 11916: 21919: 21921: 21923: 11927: 11929: 11936: 11940: 21941: 11948: 118952026peak 1895 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Coastal Produce Ass'n v. Wilson8 S.E.2d 505 (S.C. 1940)
  2. Chambers v. R. R.90 S.E. 590 (N.C. 1916)
  3. Farthing v. Carrington22 S.E. 9 (N.C. 1895) · Concurrence
  4. Columbia Nat. Bank v. Rizer149 S.E. 316 (S.C. 1929)
  5. Commissioners of Beaufort County v. Old Dominion Steamship Co.39 S.E. 18 (N.C. 1901)
  6. Chambers v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.172 N.C. 555 (1916)

Most recent

  1. Hancammon v. Carr47 S.E.2d 614 (N.C. 1948)
  2. Washington v. Safe Bus, Inc.15 S.E.2d 372 (N.C. 1941) · Dissent
  3. Knight v. Little9 S.E.2d 377 (N.C. 1940)
  4. Coastal Produce Ass'n v. Wilson8 S.E.2d 505 (S.C. 1940)
  5. Weiner v. Equel's Style Shop, Inc.188 S.E. 331 (N.C. 1936)
  6. Columbia Nat. Bank v. Rizer149 S.E. 316 (S.C. 1929)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
Guilford v. Ga. Co., 13 S.E. 861 (N.C. 1891) 27
Walker v. Scott, 11 S.E. 364 (N.C. 1890) 25
McBryde v. Patterson, 78 N.C. 412 (1878) 18
State v. Divine, 4 S.E. 477 (N.C. 1887) 17
Byerly v. Humphrey, 95 N.C. 151 (1886) 12
State v. Hazell, 95 N.C. 623 (1886) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list