Garrett v. . Smith
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Assumpsit, tried before Pool, J., at Fall Term 1869, of Chowan Court. Tbe facts were: That in 1864, and up to tbe close of tbe late war, tbe defendant was an agent of tbe State to procure suppbes of provisions and clothing, for tbe use of its troops, from places east of tbe Obowan river, and tbe plaintiff was a subordinate agent,' under tbe defendant, for the same purpose.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, tried before Pool, J., at Fall Term 1869, of Chowan Court. Tbe facts were: That in 1864, and up to tbe close of tbe late war, tbe defendant was an agent of tbe State to procure suppbes of provisions and clothing, for tbe use of its troops, from places east of tbe Obowan river, and tbe plaintiff was a subordinate agent,' under tbe defendant, for the same purpose. Accordingly, on the 1st of December 1864, the plaintiff purchased certain hats on private account, and transported them to the residence of the defendant, in Halifax County, his usual place of rendezvous. He paid for them…
1Opinion of the CourtDick, J.
The ordinance of Oct. 18th 1865, and the acts of 1866, chs. 38 and 39, relate only to the following contracts made during the late war :
1. Executory contracts solvable in money.
2. “Debts contracted, in which the nature of the obligation is not set forth, nor the value of the property for which such debts were created, is stated.”. The rules of construction laid down in Robeson v. Brown, 63 N. C., 554, are only applicable to such contracts.
The case before us presents a different kind of contract, i. ■e., a contract of exchange, or barter, of property. The plaintiff, under an express agreement,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Robeson, Adm'r, C. v. . Brown and AnotherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1869
- Mitchell v. . Henderson and AnotherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1869
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dunn v. . Barnes, Adm'rSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1875
- Phillips v. . HookerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1867