Newell v. . Barley
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil actioN, tried on appeal from a justice’s court before Lana, J., and a jury, at May Term, 1920, of MecexeNBUBG. Tbe action is to recover tbe sum of $200 for breach of contract of an alleged express warranty in sale of mule by defendant to plaintiff. Tbe summons returnable to tbe justice stated $200 as tbe sum demanded for tbe alleged breach of contract.
Read the full summary
Civil actioN, tried on appeal from a justice’s court before Lana, J., and a jury, at May Term, 1920, of MecexeNBUBG. Tbe action is to recover tbe sum of $200 for breach of contract of an alleged express warranty in sale of mule by defendant to plaintiff. Tbe summons returnable to tbe justice stated $200 as tbe sum demanded for tbe alleged breach of contract. On denial of liability there was judgment of $200 damages in tbe justice’s court, and on tbe trial in tbe Superior Court, tbe jury rendered tbe following verdict : “1. Did tbe defendant guarantee tbe mule described in tbe complaint to be…
1Opinion of the CourtHoKE, J.
Our Constitution, Art. IV, sec. 27, in express terms confers upon justices of tbe peace jurisdiction, “under such regulations as tbe General Assembly shall prescribe,” of civil action founded on contract, “wherein tbe sum demanded shall not exceed $200,” etc. Tbe statutes applicable, Rev., 1419, et seq., establish tbe regulations for tbe trial of such actions before a justice and others specified in the constitutional provision. In construing these regulations, our Court has uniformly held that in action for breach of contract involving a claim for unliqui-dated damages, the jurisdiction and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Stroud v. . Insurance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Teal v. . TempletonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Parker v. Southern Express Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
- Manning v. . FountainSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908