Legal Opinion

Hickory Novelty Co. v. Andrews

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 21, 1924PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Clarkson, J.,

after stating tbe facts: Tbe only question presented on tbe entire record is: Did tbe defendant guarantee to plaintiff tbe account sued on, $3,174.12 and interest? We are of tbe opinion that be did.

C. S., 987, is as follows: “No action shall be brought whereby to charge an executor, administrator or collector upon a special promise to answer damages out of bis own estate, or to charge any defendant upon a special promise to answer tbe debt, default or miscarriage of another person, unless tbe agreement upon wbicb such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Scovill Manufacturing Co. v. CassidyIllinois Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Conduitt v. RyanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1891
  3. Boehne v. MurphySupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
  4. Green v. . ThorntonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1856
  5. Hasty Mercantile Co. v. BryantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. ARCADY FARMS MILLING COMPANY v. WallaceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  2. Amoco Oil Co. v. GriffinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  3. Hudson v. Game World, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997
  4. Cities Serv. Oil Co. v. HOWELL OIL CO., INC.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API