Legal Opinion

Parrish Tire Co. v. Morefield

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 21, 1978No. 7721DC210PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PARKER, Judge.

The note in suit was never transferred or negotiated, and we are here concerned only with the rights and obligations of the original parties. In determining these, we apply principles of law applicable to the interpretation and effect of contracts generally.

“Whenever a court is called upon to interpret a contract its primary purpose is to ascertain the intention of the parties at the moment of its execution.” Lane v. Scarborough, 284 N.C. 407, 409-10, 200 S.E. 2d 622, 624 (1973). “The court will give legal effect to the words of a contract in accordance with the meaning actually…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Lane v. ScarboroughSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
  2. Smith v. Graham Refrigeration Products Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1955
  3. Sanford v. LuceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1953
  4. Cargill, Inc. v. Neuse Production Credit Ass'nCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975
  5. American University v. ToddSuperior Court of Delaware · 1938

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. FARMERS BANK, ETC. v. Michael T. Brown DistributorsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  2. Chemical Realty Corp. v. Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of HollywoodCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
  3. Cox v. FunkCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  4. Stonewall Insurance v. Fortress Reinsurers Managers, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  5. Fletcher v. JonesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984

7 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