Burrage v. . Crump
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an action of debt, tried before his Honor, Judge . Caldwell, at the Spring Term, 1856, of Montgomery Superi- or Court. The plaintiff declared on the following written contract: “ Received of E. Burrage one lease on the Eli Russell Mine, for which I agree to pay him three thousand dollars or return the lease in ninety days. Peb. 9th, 1851.” The plaintiff proved its execution and stopped his case.
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt, tried before his Honor, Judge . Caldwell, at the Spring Term, 1856, of Montgomery Superi- or Court. The plaintiff declared on the following written contract: “ Received of E. Burrage one lease on the Eli Russell Mine, for which I agree to pay him three thousand dollars or return the lease in ninety days. Peb. 9th, 1851.” The plaintiff proved its execution and stopped his case. The defendant offered to prove that the lease on the Russell Mine was valueless, or of small value, insisting that the sum mentioned in the contract was a penalty. This evidence was rejected…
1Opinion of the Court
Nash, J. C.
There is error in the Judge’s charge and there must be a veni/re de novo. The action is brought on the contract set out in the bill of exceptions. It is loosely expressed, but we gather from it that three thousand dollars was the con sideration to be paid for tbe lease of the Russel mine, with liberty to the defendant to repudiate the contraot, if, at the end of ninety days, he should choose to do so, to be evidenced by a retain of the lease. The breach assigned is, that the defendant did not return the lease at the end of the agreed time. On the trial below, the defendant insisted…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Powell v. PetchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Disosway v. Edwards.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Wheedon v. American Bonding & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1901
- Horn v. . PoindexterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918