Claus v. Lee.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
ActioN by Claus Shear Go. against Lee Hardware House, heard by Judge M. H. Justice and a jury, at the November Term, 1905, of the Superior Court of Habnett. Erom a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appealed. This "was an action to recover on a bill of goods which plaintiff alleges it sold and delivered to defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
1. In order to make a prima facie case, the plaintiff offered in evidence, under .the provisions of the statute, Revisal, section 1625, an itemized account of $35.53 duly verified. The defendant objected to it because not properly itemized and not expressed in intelligible terms, and also because it does not show on its face that it is for goods sold and delivered. We think the objections untenable. The statement sets out the number and kind of shears, scissors and razors shipped, the catalogue numbers, price per dozen, and discounts allowed on each. There are trade terms and abbreviations…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Colt v. . OwensNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Searcy v. HunterTexas Supreme Court · 1891
- Blalock v. Clark.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. PumphreyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1883
- Pinney v. First Division of the St. Paul & Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1872
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Colt v. . KimballSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- Fletcher v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
- Rocky Mount Savings & Trust Co. v. Ætna Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
- Yancey v. WatkinsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973
- J. B. Colt Co. v. KimballSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.