Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

64 N.C. 634

Alexander v. . Rintels

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 5, 1870

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1870-06-05

Civil action, tried before Mitchell, J., at Spring Term 1870 of Iredell Court. On the 20th of August 1862, the defendants Rintels & ' Wittkowski, upon a loan of Confederate money, made their note to Lowrance (whose administrators the plaintiffs are,) who afterwards endorsed it to Sharpe, and he, at Fall term 1864 of the Superior Court of Law for Iredell County, recovered judgment on it by default against both the makers and the administrators of the endorser.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1866

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1870-06-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

EodhaN, J.

¶1 (After stating the case as above.) We can not undertake to decide any differences between the counsel,, as to what was their agreement. The Judge, before whom a judgment is alleged to have been confessed, alone (in the first instance, at least,) ean say whether the judgment appearing of record in his Court, was entered in the terms of *636 ■the confession. We understand the question presented to us, to be, whether, upon the facts admitted in the pleadings, and independent of any agreement of the attorneys, the plaintiffs were entitled, in law, to recover as damages the full ■amount paid by them to Sharpe, or only so much as they would have been liable to pay if the scale for Confederate money had been applied to the judgment recovered in 1864. This involves the question, whether the plaintiffs were compelled to pay the full amount of the judgment. We think they were not, but, by a proper application to the Court, they were entitled to, and could, have obtained an entry of satisfaction on the judgment, upon 'a payment of so much as it would have amounted to after the application of the legislative scale to the note at its date. The case of a judgment ¡recovered during the war, upon a note given during the war, and remaining unpaid at the enactment of the Ordinance of the Convention in 1865, is clearly within the mischief intended to be remedied, and it is the duty of the Court to apply it to all cases coming within its principle. This being •so, the payment by the plaintiffs of any excess over that sum was officious, and no request by the defendants to make such payment for their use, can be implied. Consequently the plaintiffs have entered judgment for more than they were ■entitled to, and in the absence of any binding agreement by the defendants to confess judgment for a larger amount, the present judgment should be modified in accordance with these views. The judgment below is reversed, and this opinion will be certified to the Superior Court of Iredell, in order that further proceedings may be had herein according to law.

¶2 Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.

/64/nc/634 · .json · Public domain