Crotts v. . Thomas
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtDenny, J.
Tbe plaintiffs challenge tbe correctness of bis Honor’s ruling in sustaining tbe defendants’ motion for judgment as of nonsuit.
Tbe defendants contend tbe judgment below should be sustained for tbe following reasons : (1) Tbe option was not supported by a consideration; (2) tbe offer was withdrawn; (3) acceptance was not in accord with offer; and (4) tbe option is too indefinite as to tbe sale price, to be enforceable.
It is tbe law in this jurisdiction that instruments under seal require no consideration to support them. Thomason v. Bescher, 176 N. C., 622, 97 S. E., 654; Samonds v. Cloninger,…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Willard v. TayloeSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- Storm v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Ward v. . AlbertsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- Kaplan v. SuherMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
- Thomason v. . BescherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. FrazelleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
- Reynolds v. EarleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- Kottler v. MartinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- McGowan v. BeachSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- Etheridge v. WescottSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.