Legal Opinion

Cole v. Industrial Fibre Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 25, 1931PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, C. J.,

after stating the case: It was error to submit the original contract to the jury to ascertain the intention of the parties, and to hold that the supplemental agreement, from and after its execution, 23 February, 1927, covered commissions on cancellations. Mining Co. v. Smelting Co., 122 N. C., 542, 29 S. E., 940. The parties themselves, during the peaceful life of the contract, construed it otherwise and so applied it in the practical operation of their business.

The general rule is, that where, from the language employed in a contract, a question of doubtful meaning arises, and…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Towne v. EisnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
  2. Chicago v. SheldonSupreme Court of the United States · 1870
  3. Topliff v. TopliffSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  4. Hammett Oil Co. v. Gypsy Oil Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
  5. Manhattan Life Ins. v. WrightCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1903

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

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Heyer v. BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  2. Heyer v. . BulluckSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  3. Jones v. Palace Realty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  4. Jones v. . CasstevensSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  5. Davison v. Duke UniversitySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973

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

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

Powered by the Exa API