Legal Opinion

Gossett v. . McCracken

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 24, 1925PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, J.,

after stating tbe case: Plaintiffs have misconceived their remedy, and tbe case bas been tried on an erroneous theory. Conceding, as plaintiffs contend, that tbe change in tbe contract from ten days to twelve days was made with tbe defendant’s approval and consent, still there was no sale of tbe property prior to revocation of tbe power to sell, and, consequently, there could be no recovery of commissions. Plaintiffs’ right of action, if such they have, is to recover damages for an alleged breach of tbe contract. Tbe commissions, called for in tbe agreement, are dependent entirely…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hunt v. Rousmanier's AdministratorsSupreme Court of the United States · 1823
  2. Brewington v. LoughranSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  3. Missouri Ex Rel. Walker v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
  4. Martin v. . HollySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
  5. Novelty Advertising Co. v. Farmers Mutual Tobacco Warehouse Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1923

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ritch Realtors, Inc. v. KinardCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  2. White v. . PleasantsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  3. Ferguson v. BoveeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1948

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

Powered by the Exa API