Wayne County, NC - Willis Pipkin vs William Robinson, 1855

                        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Willis Pipkin administrator
of Jesse Pipkin to the
use of G.A. Dudley }
        vs         }
William Robinson   }

     This is an action of assumpsit upon a special contract tried 
before Person Judge at the Fall Term 1855 of Wayne Superior Court 
upon the general issue
     The plaintiff offered in evidence the following paper, "Whereas 
it has been found expedient to build a school house at Goldsboro 
suitable to the increasing educatur demands of our flourishing town 
& county, & whereas Twenty Five Hundred dollars is required to carry 
said school house to completion, sixteen hundred of which have been 
collected, leaving a balance of Nine Hundred Dollars to be secured by 
future Subscription, & whereas a contract has been entered into with 
Jesse Pipkin to build and complete said school house for the aforesaid 
Sum of twenty five hundred dollars; Now therefore fully believing that 
the remaining Nine hundred dollars can easily be collected from the 
friends of the enterprise in Wayne & the adjoining counties, who have 
not as yet subscribed any thing, & in order to hasten it to a speedy & 
successful completion, we whose names are hereunto subscribed do become 
pledged to Jesse Pipkin for the said balance of nine hundred dollars to 
be paid equally by each of us, provided always that nine responsible 
persons become so pledged 
     And we further agree to make good any balance that may fail to 
be subscribed to secure said amount nine hundred dollars. And it is well 
understood that the obligation is not to be used nor will it be regarded 
as binding unless signed by nine responsible persons as aforesaid, dated 
this 4th day of October 1852." Which paper the pltff proved was signed 
by the defendant & eight other responsible persons, all of whom he 
admitted had paid $100 each except the defendant
     There was evidence given tending to shew that Jesse Pipkin put
up the building referred to in the foregoing agreement, but did not
paint it, & that the defendant Robinson shorly afterwards by the 
authority of the trustees went into the possession of it & used it as
a school house & also that he had it painted. It was further in 
evidence that Pipkin said "he was to complete the building in every
particular." The defendant then proposed to shew by a mechanic that
the term "complete" in building contracts included painting, which 
was objected to & not allowed.
     The court charged the jury that the plaintiff in order to entitle
himself to recover in this action must satisfy them that he had built
the school house according to his contract, & left it to the jury to
say whether from all the evidence that contract required him to paint
it, if it did, then he could not recover, but if it did not, that he
could recover of the defandant upon the agreement entered into by him & 
the eight other persons
     Verdict & judgd for plaintiff - Rule for new trial - Ruled
discharged & appealed by defendt to the Supreme Court

                                            Saml J. Pe___

__________________________________________________________________

Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm

This file was contributed for use in the USGenWeb Archives by
James B. Ingram
___________________________________________________________________