TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Marrow v. White

T. T. Marrow and Wife v. J. J. White and Wife.

Marrow v. White, 65 S.E. 746 (N.C. 1909)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 6, 1909
Judges
Clark
Citations
65 S.E. 746151 N.C. 961909 N.C. LEXIS 202
Headnotes
Contracts — Debt of Another — Consideration — Independent Agreement. A promise to the landlord made by one advancing supplies to the tenant, under a mortgage, that if the landlord would wait until the tenant finished selling the crop the promisor would give him his note for the tenant’s rent payable the next fall, is an independent contract between the landlord and one furnishing the supplies, and not barred by the statute of frauds. The question whether the landlord in this case has lost his lien by not following the remedy provided under the Virginia statute, does not arise.
Summary
Appeal by defendant from O. H. Allen, J., May Term, 1909, of VANCE. The fa,cts are sufficiently stated in tbe 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, C. J.

The plaintiffs own a tract of land in Virginia. Their tenant sold some of the crop, and instead of paying the proceeds on the rent paid it to the defendant, a merchant, on his store account for supplies, for which he held a mortgage.

The plaintiff testified that the defendant told him, “If you will wait till Hilliard (the tenant) finishes selling, I will give you my note for the $75, payable next fall.” The Code of Virginia, sec. 2496, gives the landlord a lien “prior to all other liens” and a remedy by distress.

We need not consider the question debated before us, whether the landlord’s lien in' that State is lost by not taking out proceedings in distress, for, according to plaintiff’s evidence, the defendant promised to pay the $75 if the plaintiff would let the tenant alone till he had gathered and sold the rest of his crop. This is not a 'promise barred by the statute of frauds, but an independent contract upon a consideration.

Whitehurst v. Hyman, 90 N. C., 490 ;

Voorhees v. Porter, 134 N. C., 604 ;

Deaver v. Deaver, 137 N. C., 244 ;

Satterfield v. Kindley, 144 N. C., 461 , in which last case the point is fully and clearly presented by Mr. Justice Brown.

The nonsuit must be Reversed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1912: 11924: 119122026peak 1912 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Frohardt Bros. v. Duff135 N.W. 609 (Iowa 1912)
  2. Novelty Co. v. Andrews123 S.E. 314 (N.C. 1924)

Most recent

  1. Novelty Co. v. Andrews123 S.E. 314 (N.C. 1924)
  2. Frohardt Bros. v. Duff135 N.W. 609 (Iowa 1912)

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 3

DepthCaseCited by
Voorhees v. Porter., 47 S.E. 31 (N.C. 1904) 45
Whitehurst v. Hyman, 90 N.C. 487 (1884) 19
Satterfield v. Kindley, 57 S.E. 145 (N.C. 1907) 10

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