Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

101 N.C. 234

7 S.E 712

Spence v. . Smith

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 5, 1888

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1888-09-05

<p>Contract — Assignment— Purchaser.</p> <p>S. and M. entered into a contract whereby the latter sold and conveyed to the former the right to make and vend a patented article within certain prescribed territory, with a provision that if S., after using due diligence failed to realize therefrom a certain sum by the time the notes given for the purchase money became due, the contract should be void, and thereupon S. executed the notes, which, before maturity. M. assigned to the plaintiffs without endorsement; Held, that the assignees' took the notes subject to the contract, and all equities arising therefrom.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1886

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1888-09-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Merrimon, J.,

¶1 (after stating the case). The plaintiffs took the bonds sued upon without endorsement before they matured, and hence they hold them subject to the rights of the defendants, under the agreement mentioned, on which they rely, and such equities as they may have in respect to the-bonds.

¶2 The plaintiffs having on the trial admitted the evidence tobe true, it may be granted that the Court should have instructed the jury that the principal defendant had or had. *238 not exercised “ due diligence in the manufacture and sale of bee hives,” &c., accordingly as it may have been of opinion one way or the other, but any error in this respect was cured by the verdict of the jury to the effect, that he had exercised such diligence. Fairly interpreting the evidence, this defendant was reasonably, and therefore duly, diligent. He prepared himself with three specimen bee hives for exhibition in his efforts to make sales. He made such efforts in two counties. In one of these counties he did so for the time of a week — had with him a specimen hive— exhibited it at several places — failed to make sales at all, and reported this fact to McDaniel, who instructed him to “try again.” Pie did so without success, and when he returned McDaniel “was gone,” and he learned from one of his firm that he had taken the notes off and sold them.” We think that such effort to make sales, accompanied with such discouragement, was due diligence as contemplated by the agreement. It would have been worse than idle for the defendant to manufacture “bee hives” when he could not sell them. Surely he was not expected to make fruitless efforts indefinitely. Spence v. Clapp, 95 N. C., 545.

¶3 The evidence showed that active, diligent effort was made by the defendant. If the appellants intended to insist, as it seems they did, that the detail of such effort would show the contrary, then they should have cross-examined the defendant when he was examined on the trial in his own behalf, and they might have produced other evidence to the contrary, if they could.

¶4 Taking the evidence as produced, and the just inferences that might justly be made from it, there was due diligence.

¶5 Judgment affirmed.

/101/nc/234 · .json · Public domain