Brown v. . Smith
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an action of detinue, instituted in the Superior Court of Mecklenburg, by order of the Supreme Court in the case of Stenhouse & McCauley against the plaintiffs and defendant. Plaintiff was directed to bring an action and tho defendant was required to admit the service and demand, &c. The cause was tried at a Special Term of Mecklenburg Superior Court, Moore, Jpresiding.
Read the full summary
This was an action of detinue, instituted in the Superior Court of Mecklenburg, by order of the Supreme Court in the case of Stenhouse & McCauley against the plaintiffs and defendant. Plaintiff was directed to bring an action and tho defendant was required to admit the service and demand, &c. The cause was tried at a Special Term of Mecklenburg Superior Court, Moore, Jpresiding. The action was brought for the detention of a large number of books, some 1,2U0 volumes, which plaintiff alleged was the property of his intestate. Defendant claimed title under an alleged sale made by one- Latta, as…
1Opinion of the CourtReads, J.
We see no error in the instructions as to what was necessary to constitute Latta the agent of Sneed to sell the books, nor as to the revocation of his agencju From the verdict of the jury, therefore, we are to understand that Latta was authorized to sell the books ; but still it does not follow that lie was authorized to make such a sale as he did make. We must, therefore, consider this question.
When an agent is authorized to sell property he must sell for money, unless special instructions take it out of the general rule. He cannot barter or exchange one commodity for another. And if he does…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Brittain v. WesthallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Winders v. Hill.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Smith Crossroads, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Brittain v. . WesthallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1904