White v. Tudor
White v. Tudor
Opinion of the Court
From what is exhibited by this record, the principles of equity alone should have been, and in fact were invoked in the determination of this controversy, rather than the strict rules of law.
It is true the petition was founded upon a note, which was. alleged to be the evidence of indebtedness of appellant, as a partner with others, to the appellee; and which, by the plea of non est faetnmi, with the proof in support of it, totally nullified, the note sued upon, as an instrument of evidence to establish presumptively his indebtedness. Tet, the allegation in the petition that the indebtedness by the appellant and company to-the appellee was subsisting, was still sufficient to let in the-proof of the nature of that indebtedness; and that ex equo et. bono the appellant ought to pay it. That proof was adduced,, and the determination of the court, without the intervention of a jury, was an equitable decree that it should be paid. If the petition had been called a bill in equity, and the same proof had been introduced, upon its production, or at least upon final hearing, the petition, as a mere bill, would have-been dismissed as to the other parties brought in under the-word company, or “Co.,” and a final decree pronounced against the appellant for the amount due. Such a result or determination, is perfectly legitimate under our system of remedial justice. From the proof, the consideration of the reputed note,, which in strict law was a nullity, enured solely to the benefit, of the appellant, and was furnished with his tacit consent; or,, at least, with his knowledge and silent acquiescence; and it. would be inequitable for him to enjoy the fruits of another’s labor without compensation, hfothing appears in this record showing that the statute of limitation was plead; and this,
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- S. A. White v. Henry Tudor
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- “T—Whii». Loing suect on a note purporting to have been made by White1 & Co., a firm of which he had been a member, denied the execution of the note by a sworn plea of non est factum. It was proved that, after the dissolution of the firm, the note was executed by one A., who had been a member of it, and who settled up its affairs after the dissolution; and that the consideration of the note was the building of a warehouse for the firm, .but on the individual land of White, who held the house as his indi, vidual property after the dissolution. No public notice of the dissolution was given, nor was it proved that the plaintiff knew of the dissolution when he received the note, but there was evidence that it was then generally known in the small town where all parties lived. Seld, that although the suit was on the note, and it was invalidated as evidence by the plea, yet the allegation of indebtedness in the petition was sufficient to let in other evidence to show that the consideration of the note enured to the sole benefit of White, and was furnished with his consent, whereby he became equitably liable for the amount. And held further, that undercut mixed system of law and equity, it was legitimate to render judgment against White on the equitable liability, although the suit was-founded on the note and not on the consideration of it.