Legal Opinion

Burns v. . Tomlinson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 20, 1908PublishedCited by 9 opinions

AotioN tried before Webb, J., and a jury, at October Term, 1907, of ANSow. Plaintiff appealed.

1Opinion of the Court

ClaRK, O. J.

Tlie plaintiff seeks to recover $1,920 paid by bim to Robert Moore & Oo., of New York, “on 100 bales of cotton, October delivery, bought and sold for account of plaintiff.” Tbe following is Moore & Co.’s statement, rendered 25 September, 1905:

“April 27, sold 100 Bspc.$ 7.29

Aug. 28, bo’t 100 Bspc. 11.10

-$1,905

Charges brokerage, buying and selling. 15

Net debit .! . $1,920”

Tbe defendant, in his verified answer, pleaded that tbe above transaction was void, being a contract for “futures.” Upon such plea made, Revisal, sec. 1691, provides that tbe burden is upon tbe plaintiff to prove…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Embrey v. JemisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  2. Everingham v. MeighanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
  3. State v. Clayton.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  4. Garseed v. Sternberger.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Orvis Bros. v. Holt-Morgan MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
  2. Security Life & Annuity Co. v. CostnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  3. Holt v. . WellonsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  4. Rodgers, McCabe & Co. v. BellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  5. Charles M. Pfeifer & Co. v. IsraelSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913

4 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