Legal Opinion

Hite v. . Aydlett

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 15, 1926PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCoNNOR, J.

Tbe defense relied upon by defendant to plaintiff’s recovery upon tbe cause of action set out in the complaint, is that plaintiff has not performed bis contract with defendant, in that be has failed to furnish plans and specifications for the work contemplated in accordance with tbe contract. Defendant alleges that it was expressly understood and agreed that the plans and specifications to be furnished by plaintiff should be so drawn and prepared that tbe cost of construction in accordance therewith should not exceed $17,000, whereas tbe lowest bid submitted for tbe work in accordance with…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Moffitt v. . ManessSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
  2. Cumming v. . BarberSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
  3. Braswell v. . PopeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1880
  4. Manning v. . JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1853
  5. Palmer v. . LowderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Root v. Allstate Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  2. Turner v. Hammocks Beach Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2009
  3. Piedmont Bank and Trust Co. v. StevensonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  4. Williams v. . Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  5. Smith v. Central Soya of Athens, Inc.District Court, E.D. North Carolina · 1985

16 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