Royce v. Barnes
Royce v. Barnes
Opinion of the Court
The only question of any difficulty in this case is, whether the plaintiff was legally authorized to commence the action in his own name ; for if he was, we 'think it very clear that the writ was not abated by the death of Williams A. Royce ; nor was it any valid objection that the note in suit was antedated by mistake, and not fraudulently.
As to the main question, the objection is, that the property in the note sued was in Williams A. Royce at the commencement of the action, and that the plaintiff was his agent, and had only authority to sue and collect it for him. This objection would be supported by the cases cited by the defendant’s counsel, but for the evidence reported, which was introduced by the plaintiff’s counsel. That evidence tended to prove, and it has not been questioned that it did satisfactorily prove, that the plaintiff, before commencing the action, called on the defendant for the payment of the note, and that the defendant asked for further time for payment, and then promised the plaintiff to pay it. After this promise, we think it was not competent for the defendant to question the plaintiff’s right to sue in his own name.
The jury allowed the defendant all he claimed by way of set-off; so that full justice has been done. And a new trial ought not to be granted for any verbal inaccuracy or defect in the instructions, not affecting the merits of the case, if any such there are.
Exceptions overruled.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Evans Royce v. David Barnes
- Status
- Published