Legal Opinion

Acme Manufacturing Co. v. McQueen

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 25, 1925PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, O. J.

It will be observed from the verdict that the first and third issues were answered by consent, leaving only the second issue to be determined by the jury. This issue imports liability to arrest. Coble v. Medley, 186 N. C., 479.

Early in 1915 the plaintiff entered into a contract with the partnership firm of Tatum & McQueen, under the terms of which the said firm became the agent of the plaintiff for the sale of certain fertilizers. The defendant, Peter McQueen, is the surviving partner of said firm; the other partner, O. J. Tatum, having died prior to the institution of this suit.…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. White Ex Rel. White v. HinesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  2. Skyland Hosiery Co. v. American Railway Express Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  3. Cox v. Aberdeen & Asheboro R. R. Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
  4. Bond v. Pickett Cotton Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  5. Blow v. . JoynerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Dehoff v. . BlackSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  2. Bryant v. Southern Box & Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  3. Yancey v. North Carolina State Highway & Public Works CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  4. Insurance Company v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  5. Royal Insurance v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API