Legal Opinion

Little v. . Fleishman

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 3, 1919PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The defendants denied the liability, and averred that the contract of sale had not been completed; that the stock of goods were sold in bulk by the store, and the provisions of Revisal, sec. 964a were not complied with, that the creditors, by their own unauthorized and illegal action, defeated the consummation of the contract by taking the goods from the possession of the defendants' servant, who had been placed in charge by them; that while the parties — that is, the defendants and the store — were engaged in closing up the contract, and before the purchase price had been paid, plaintiff, at…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Bloom v. Home Insurance AgencySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
  2. Wilson v. Commercial Finance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  3. Phifer v. . ErwinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
  4. Smith v. Young Bros.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
  5. Ward v. MoffettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Wilson v. Commercial Finance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  2. Sinclair Refining Co. v. CostinCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1938
  3. Denson v. Provident Mut. Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API