Monger v. . Lutterloh
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
Stacy, O. J.
It was conceded on the hearing that the defendants had wrongfully breached the rental contract, and that damages should be assessed up to the end of the term. There is no allegation of a surrender of the demised premises by the defendants and an acceptance of 'such surrender by the plaintiff. Nor is there any plea of a cancellation or rescission of the lease. In this state of the record, we think the trial court erred in limiting the damages to six months’ rent under the contract.
In the absence of a surrender and acceptance, an eviction, or a release, and when no stipulation…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Coe v. . HobbyNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Bradbury v. HigginsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Milage v. . WoodwardNew York Court of Appeals · 1906
- Brewington v. LoughranSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
- Rouse v. City of KinstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- Rose v. Vulcan Materials CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- Troitino v. GoodmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. HoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
- Lamm v. ShingletonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- Norwood v. CarterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.