Virginia Bridge & Iron Co. v. Townsville Railroad

Per Curiam. The defendant contends that it was discharged from liability by reason of the contract between the plaintiff and Paschall; that the relation between these two created an obligation which was separate and distinct from that of the defendant; that all payments were made by Paschall as guarantor; and that the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is barred by the statute of limitations. Coleman v. Fuller, 105 N. C., 328. A trial by jury was waived and the presiding judge found these facts : the action was begun 26 August, 1924; the defendant has not been released from its obligation; that the payments were made by Paschall; and the balance due is $10,000 with interest from 15 January, 1922. His Honor held that the plaintiff’s cause of action against the defendant is not barred. We are left somewhat in doubt as to the import of the finding that the payments were made by Paschall. It appears that Paschall was treasurer of the defendant and as such was instrumental in the execution of the contract; but it does not distinctly appear whether Paschall made all or any of the payments in his capacity as guarantor or in his capacity as treasurer of the defendant. There is another point. In the written contract Paschall guaranteed payment; in the case on appeal, which was agreed to by the attorneys, it is said there was evidence of an agreement that he should become surety. Before deciding whether the claim is barred we prefer to have a more complete disclosure of the facts relating to these two questions. The case is therefore remanded for a further finding of the facts. Remanded.