Legal Opinion

Horton v. Humble Oil & Refining Company

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 22, 1961No. 314PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWiNBORNE, C.J.

The pivotal question presented on this appeal is this: Is there sufficient evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, to establish the existence of a contract between plaintiff and the defendant Oil Company? The answer is No.

In Williamson v. Miller, 231 N.C. 722, 58 S.E. 2d 743, this Court said: “ ‘To be binding, the terms of a contract must be definite and certain or capable of being made so.’ Elks v. Ins. Co., 159 N.C. 619, 75 S.E. 808; Sides v. Tidwell, 216 N.C. 480, 5 S.E. 2d 316.”

In Elks v. Ins. Co., supra, this Court said: “It is elementary that it is necessary that…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Mississippi & Dominion Steamship Co. v. SwiftSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1894
  2. Cash Register Co. v. . TownsendSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  3. Elks v. . Insurance CoSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
  4. Williamson v. MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  5. Pritchard v. . DaileySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. O'Grady v. First Union National BankSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  2. Schlieper v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
  3. Normile v. MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
  4. McFadyen v. Duke UniversityDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2011
  5. Elliott v. Duke University, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984

21 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