# Farmer v. . Willard

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · June 5, 1874 · 71 N.C. 284

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3678061

## Case

- **Full name:** H. T. Farmer v. W. H. Willard.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** June 5, 1874
- **Citations:** 71 N.C. 284
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by ByNuM
- **Judges:** ByNuM
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3678061

## Opinion text

*286
ByNüM, J.
Hyman was the agent of Willard to purchase land, and it was his duty to reduce the bill of exchange to cash and with it to pay for the land purchased. Instead of doing this himself, he passed the bill of exchange to the plaintiff with instructions to present it to the Bank at once. The plaintiff followed the instructions and duly notified the agent of the nonpayment.
Notice to the agent was notice to the principal. If there was laches it was on the part of the agent in not duly notifying the drawer of the dishonor of the bill, but with this cause of quarrel between principal and agent, the plaintiff has no concern. His cause of action arose on the non-payment when he presented it according to his instructions and gave notice thereof.
Hubbard
v.
Troy,
2 Ired., 134 .
It was objected that the plaintiff could not recover the value of the land, because there was no note or memorandum in writing, given by the party to be charged. But if this case fell within the operation of the statute of frauds, the case shows that a deed for the land was made to and accepted by the defendant through his agent, and this would be a compliance with the statute. Certainly when the defendant purchased and took a deed for the land, he was bound to the plaintiff for the purchase money, and the action was properly brought on the evidence of debt, to wit, the bill of exchange. It being a Confederate debt, it was competent for 'the plaintiff to show what was the consideration of the contract, and it was the duty of the jury to determine the value of the contract in present currency. Bat. Rev., ch. 34, sec. 7.
Robeson
v.
Brown,
63 N. C., 554 , and subsequent cases. The consideration of the bill was land, and the jury, by their verdict, have ascertained its value in the present currency.
There is no error.
Pee Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3678061. Public record. Not legal advice.