Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Smart Summary

Summary of Opinion: W. R. Stinson v. A. S. Moody (Supreme Court of North Carolina, December Term, 1855)

Factual and Procedural Background

This was an action of debt on a penal bond brought by W. R. Stinson against Anderson S. Moody, tried before Judge Ellis at Moore Superior Court. The declaration rested on a bond dated January 2, 1850, by which Moody bound himself to make Stinson a good and sufficient title to 129 acres in Moore County when the whole of the purchase money was paid within 1852. The defendant pleaded the general issue, "conditions performed and not broken," and, after a continuance, pleaded "release since the last continuance."

The plaintiff's purchase money was said to have been satisfied by an order drawn by a third person on a merchant in Asheborough, which was accepted in full satisfaction and upon which a prior note was surrendered to the plaintiff. Stinson then demanded a deed; Moody refused and this suit followed. In the court below it was argued that the order had not been paid when the suit was brought and therefore there was no breach; that contention was abandoned on appeal to this Court.

To support his plea of release, the defendant produced a sealed instrument (dated March 31, 1854) titled "Contract, compromise, and re-conveyance," in which Stinson agreed to dismiss a suit he had pending in Moore Superior Court against Moody and to pay the costs; in consideration of ten shillings Stinson purported to bargain, sell, and transfer to Moody his interest in the 129 acres and agreed to surrender the title bond.

The trial court charged the jury that the evidence, if believed, established payment of the purchase money, and that the deed (the sealed instrument) did not sustain the plea of release. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff and the defendant appealed.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the sealed instrument in which the obligee agreed to dismiss a suit pending against the obligor, to pay costs, and to surrender the bond sued upon, operated as a release of the pending cause of action and could be pleaded puis darein continuance to bar the suit.
  2. Whether, as a factual/legal matter, the purchase money had been paid prior to commencement of the suit (an issue raised below but expressly abandoned by defendant in this Court).

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

  • The purchase money obligation was satisfied by an order drawn by a third person which was accepted in full satisfaction, and the related note was surrendered to the plaintiff.
  • After satisfaction, the plaintiff demanded a deed; the defendant's refusal to convey justified the suit on the bond.

Defendant's Arguments

  • The defendant pleaded general issue and alleged that conditions were performed and not broken.
  • It was argued in the court below that the order for the purchase money had not been paid when the suit was brought, and therefore there was no breach of the bond (this point was abandoned on appeal).
  • The defendant relied on the sealed instrument (the "Contract, compromise, and re-conveyance") and contended it operated to defeat the plaintiff's suit (i.e., was a release or otherwise barred the action).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
7 Com. Dig. Tit. Release, Letter A. Definition and nature of a release: "when a man quits or renounces that which he before had;" a release may be by express words or by act in law. The Court relied on this authority to define "release" and to show that an agreement under seal to dismiss a suit, pay costs, and surrender the bond is consistent with recognized definitions of a release.
Co. Lit. 264 b. Examples that particular expressions (e.g., "remise," "quits claim," "renounces," "acquits") will have the same effect as the word "release." The Court cited this passage to support the proposition that no particular word is required to effect a release, and that analogous expressions or acts can operate as a release.
Dean v. Newhall, 8 Term. Rep. 168. That a covenant not to sue one of two joint and several obligors could be pleaded in bar as to that obligor, and that a covenant not to sue a single obligor might be pleaded as a release to avoid circuity of action. The Court invoked this case to show the principle that a covenant under seal not to sue (or to dismiss and surrender remedies) as to a single obligor may be pleaded as a release, and applied that principle to the present sealed agreement.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court (Battle, J.) first noted that the defendant had properly abandoned his objection that the purchase money had not been paid prior to the commencement of the suit. The Court explained the contractual time stipulation (payment within 1852) was for the benefit of the plaintiff and that the true meaning of the bond was that upon payment within the stipulated time the defendant should immediately execute a deed.

Turning to the plea of release, the Court declined to rely on (or place weight upon) that portion of the instrument that purported to be a reconveyance of the plaintiff's interest in the land. Instead, the Court focused on the clause under seal in which the obligee agreed to dismiss the pending suit, to pay costs, and to surrender the bond sued upon. Applying the authorities cited (7 Com. Dig., Co. Litt., and Dean v. Newhall), the Court reasoned that an agreement under seal to dismiss the suit, pay costs, and surrender the bond must be construed as a release of the action in order to avoid a circuity of action. The Court emphasized that a release may be effected by express words or by equivalent acts or covenants, and that a covenant not to sue a single obligor can operate as a release.

On this basis the Court concluded that the instrument should have been treated as a release sufficient to be pleaded puis darein continuance, and that the trial court erred in charging the jury that the deed did not sustain the plea of release.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court reversed the judgment of the court below and awarded a venire de novo. The core ruling is summarized as follows: The sealed agreement in which the obligee agreed to dismiss a suit pending against the obligor, to pay costs, and to surrender the bond sued upon operates as a release of the pending cause of action and may be pleaded puis darein continuance.

Implications: The direct effect of the decision is to require that the trial court treat the dispositive sealed instrument as a release that could bar the plaintiff's present action; because the trial court ruled otherwise, the Supreme Court reversed and ordered a new venire. The opinion applies established authorities to support its construction of such an instrument as a release. The opinion does not undertake to announce or describe any broader changes in precedent beyond the application of the cited authorities to the instrument presented.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed.

WILLIAM R. STINSON vs. ANDERSON S. MOODY.

An instrument under seal, in which the obligor "agrees and binds himself to dismiss a suit he has pending, and to pay the costs", though it also contains a deed for the land in controversy between them, and a covenant to surrender a bond for title to the same land, is nevertheless a release of the cause of action pending, and may be pleaded to that suit puis darein continuance.

The plaintiff declared on the following bond, viz: "Know all men by these presents, that I, Anderson S. Moody, am held and firmly bound unto W. R. Stinson in the sum of two hundred and fifty-eight dollars, to make him a good and sufficient title to one hundred and twenty-nine acres of land, lying and being in the county of Moore, on the branches of Bear creek, adjoining the Davis one hundred acres, and John Dunlay's three hundred acres, which I bind myself, my heirs and assigns and administrators to make him a title, when the whole of the purchase money is paid within 1852. The conditions of the above obligations is such, that if the purchase money is paid within two years, 1852, and if not, to be null and void and of no effect. This 2d day of January, 1850." Then follows a more minute description of the land to be conveyed.

The defendant pleaded the general issue, conditions performed and not broken, and in apt time afterwards, pleaded release since the last continuance.

The purchase money stipulated to be paid by plaintiff, was satisfied by an order drawn by a third person on a merchant in Asheborough, which was accepted in full satisfaction of that debt, and a note which had been given for the same was surrendered to plaintiff. He then demanded a deed for the land set out in the bond, and defendant having refused to make the same, this suit was brought. The order for the money had not been paid, and it was contended in the court below, that there was no breach of the bond, as the money called for in the order had not been paid when the suit was brought. This point, however, was abandoned in this court.

To sustain the plea of "release," the defendant put in the following sealed instrument of writing, viz:

"Contract, compromise, and re-conveyance between W. R. Stinson and A. S. Moody. It is agreed on the part of said Stinson, to dismiss a suit he has pending in Moore Superior Court of Law against Moody, and pay the costs. And in consideration of ten shillings, the said Stinson hereby bargains, sells, and transfers to said Moody and his heirs, one hundred and twenty-nine acres of land in Moore county, and all the interest, equitable or otherwise, which the said Stinson has, and holds, in and to said lands, which heretofore he contracted to buy of said Moody, and for which he holds said Moody's title bond, and which title bond, the said Stinson agrees, and binds himself, to surrender and deliver up to said Moody. This 31st of March, 1854."

His Honor charged the jury that the evidence, if believed, established a payment of the purchase money: also, that the deed offered in evidence did not sustain the plea of release. To this charge the defendant excepted.

Verdict for plaintiff. Judgment and appeal.

BATTLE, J.

The counsel for the defendant has, in this court, abandoned, and very properly abandoned, the objection, that the purchase money for the land which he had bound himself to convey, had not been paid prior to the commencement of the suit. He might, with equal propriety, have given up the objection, that the defendant had, under his bond, the whole of the year 1852, within which to convey the land to the plaintiff. The stipulation for time was inserted for the benefit of the plaintiff, and the true meaning of the contract evidently is, that upon the payment of the purchase money by the plaintiff, within the stipulated time, the defendant should immediately execute to him a deed for the land.

The last objection urged against the plaintiff's right to recover, is of a different character, and we are unable to discover any ground upon which it can be resisted. We lay no stress upon that part of the instrument pleaded puis darein continuance, which purports to be a reconveyance of the plaintiff's interest in the land, but we do not see how the agreement under seal to dismiss the suit, pay the costs, and surrender the bond sued upon, can be construed to be any thing else than a release. A release is said to be "when a man quits or renounces that which he before had." 7 Com. Dig. Tit. Release, Letter A. It may be by express words, or by act in law. When it is by express words, it does not require any particular word; so that "remise," "quits claim," "renounces," "acquits," c., will have the same effect as the word "release." Co. Lit. 264 b. If a lessor grants that his lessee shall be discharged of his rent, this amounts to a release of the rent. So, if a man acknowledges himself to be satisfied and discharged of all bonds, c., by the obligor, it amounts to a release of the bond. So, if one covenant that he will never sue for a debt, this amounts to a release. See 7 Com. Dig., ubi supra, and the cases there cited. In Dean v. Newhall, 8 Term. Rep. 168, it was decided that where an obligee covenanted not to sue one of two joint and several obligors, and that if he did, the deed of covenant might be pleaded in bar, he might still sue the other obligor. But it was said, in the same case, that a covenant not to sue a single obligor might be pleaded as a release, to avoid a circuity of action. This principle must necessarily embrace our case. An agreement under seal to dismiss a suit then pending, to pay the cost, and to surrender up the bond upon which the action is brought, must, to avoid circuity of action, be construed to be a release of the action. The judgment of the court below is reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.

PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STINSON v. MOODY
(Dec 1, 1855)