Legal Opinion

Richlands Supply Co. v. Banks

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 1, 1933PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

That the plaintiff’s cause of action is not “to recover a balance due upon a mutual, open and current account, where there have been reciprocal demands between tbe parties,” etc., as contemplated by C. S., 421, may bo conceded from a consideration of tbe decisions dealing with tbis section. Brock v. Franck, 194 N. C., 346, 139 S. E., 696; McKinnie Bros. v. Wester, 188 N. C., 514, 125 S. E., 1; Hollingsworth v. Allen, 176 N. C., 629, 97 S. E., 625; Green v. Caldcleugh, 18 N. C., 320.

But while tbe plaintiff’s entire account may not be saved by tbe provisions of C. S., 421 from tbe bar of tbe…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Stokes v. . TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
  2. Cashmar-King Supply Co. v. Dowd & KingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
  3. O'Hanlon Co. v. JessMontana Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Alley v. . RogersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  5. Phillips v. . PenlandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Whitley's Electric Service, Inc. v. SherrodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  2. Little v. . ShoresSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  3. United States Steel Corp. v. LassiterCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
  4. Tew v. . HinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  5. Whitley's Electric Service, Inc. v. SherrodCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977

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

Powered by the Exa API