Joseph Kimbro brought a case against Cuthbert Bullitt, Thomas D. Miller, and Lloyd D. Addison who were partners in trade under the name of Bullitt, Miller & Co. The dispute was over an unpaid debt that had been incurred by Kimbro for goods purchased from the defendants’ store in 1858. In his complaint to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, Kimbro argued that he should not be held liable for any interest on this debt as it was never agreed upon at the time of purchase or mentioned in writing between him and the defendants prior to payment being due. The court ruled against Kimbro stating that since there was no written agreement regarding interest payments then they would assume one existed based on common law principles which stated that if a debtor failed to pay within 30 days after demand then they could be charged with interest until full repayment occurred. This decision set precedent for future cases involving similar disputes where parties did not have explicit agreements about how much money is owed when debts are paid late or not at all

In the case of Joseph Kimbro v. Cuthbert Bullitt, Thomas D. Miller, and Lloyd D. Addison, partners in trade under the name and style of Bullitt, Miller & Co., a dissenting opinion was issued by Justice Nelson who argued that the plaintiff should have been granted relief from his debt to defendants due to their failure to provide him with an itemized statement of account as required by law at the time. He reasoned that since they had not provided such a statement within one year after demand for it had been made by Mr. Kimbro's attorney - which would have allowed him to dispute any charges he felt were incorrect or unjustified - then all claims against him should be considered discharged according to statute and he should no longer be held liable for payment on said debt.