majority"> Bystum, J.

It was admitted on the trial, that Harris purchased the property, for the value of which this action was instituted, and the sole question in issue was whether Shaffer was not jointly interested in tfie purchase, or had not otherwise made himself liable. The plaintiff and two defendants, became witnesses in their own behalf, — Pepper testifying that before the purchase by Harris, Shaffer in making propositions to buy the land, also offered to purchase a portion of the personal property, and also giving evidence tending to show that Harris was the agent of Shaffer in conducting the negotiations; and Shaffer and Harris testifying and denying that Shaffer was concerned in the purchase. Before the sale to Harris, this co-defendant had ■been negotiating with the plaintiff, the owner, and one .Zollicoffer, the mortgagee, for the purchase of the Roanoke land on wrhich the personal property bought by Plarris was located. Harris purchased on the 10th of February, 1871. Prior to this purchase, to-wit, May the 18th, 1871, Shaffer wrote to Zollicoffer, the mortgagee, proposing, with Pepper’s consent, to relieve the mortgagee from all liability for the ■debts of Pepper, if the personal property, and the land could be obtained by him. And after the sale to Harris, to-wit,' in October, 1873, Shaffer again wrote to Zollicoffer, stating his purpose to relinquish the possession of the land, for the purchase of which he had previously been negotiating, and, upon which was the personal property purchased by Harris (and so far as we know, the only personalty used in the •cultivation of the farm,) and wishing to know of Zollicof-fier, if “he wanted any of our stock, horses, mules, cattle, *74 farming tools,” &c., enumerating a long list of just the kind of stock and farming implements, contained in the bill of particulars, as sold by Pepper to Harris. The other letters,, whether written before or after the sale, are more of less' connected with the dealings w ith Harris in respect of the-stock, or the land upon which it was located. These letters-were, therefore, competent and important" testimony going-to establish the complicity of Shaffer in the purchase made-by Harris. And they were also admissible, both as contradicting the testimony of Shaffer, and as confirming the-evidence of Pepper.

The nest exception was to the charge of the Judge to the jury. This was his language: “If the jury believe that Shaffer, in the course of his dealings and correspondence-with the plaintiff, gave him reasonable ground to believe,, and he did believe, that the personal property was to be-bought and used for the benefit of Shaffer, and that the plaintiff parted with his property under that belief, and the property was used for the joint benefit of Shaffer and Harris, on Shaffer’s farm, then Shaffer is affected with liability to the plaintiff for the property, as well as Harris; and this-would be so, although the arrangement for the purchase was-completed by Harris, in the presence of Harris alone.” The exception is to the expression, “ Shaffer’s farm,” used by the Judge, as being calculated to mislead the jury. We-cannot, as a conclusion of law, see how the, defendant was-prejudiced; therefore the matter was addressed exclusively to the discretion of the Judge below, on a motion for a new trial.

But the jury could not have been misled, for although the farm on the Roanoke was where the stock was at first-located, it was in evidence that it was afterward removed to a farm near Raleigh, which was known as “Shaffer’s farm,”' and there used in its cultivation.

The defendants finally submitted a motion in arrest of *75 judgment, on the ground that the verdict was insensible. There were several issues submitted to the jury, but in order to present the point made, it is necessary to set out only two of the issues and findings. The first was: “ Did the-defendants or either of them agree with the plaintiff to purchase the property mentioned in the pleadings, and to pay its reasonable value? Ans. — “Yes, by Harris.” The seventh issue was: “"Was the defendant, Shaffer, a party to the contract made between the plaintiff and the defendant* Harris?” Ans. — “ The defendant, Shaffer, was a party to the contract.”

The ungrammatical findings of the jury upon the first and other issues, do not vitiate the verdict when the sense is clear, but-when taken in connection with the finding upon the seventh and main issue, which is clear and explicit* there remains no room for misconstruction.

Upon the merits of the action, we refer to the two recent decisions of this Court, Poole v. Lewis, 75 N. C. 417; Tull v. Trustees, 75 N. C. 424.

There is no error.

PER OüRIAM. Judgment affirmed.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress