McCall v. Gloucester Lumber Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtOlaeKsoN, J.
Tbe record discloses many interesting questions that we need not now consider.
“A party is not permitted to try bis case in tbe Superior Court on one theory and then ask tbe Supreme Court to bear it on another and different theory. Warren v. Susman, 168 N. C., 457.” Shipp v. Stage Lines, 192 N. C., at p. 478; In re Will of Efird, 195 N. C., at p. 84.
The theory upon which the court below tried the case: The evidence of plaintiff tended to establish the contract as alleged by him. The probative force of the evidence was for the jury and they found the contract was as contended for by the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Warren v. . SusmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Strunks v. . PayneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
- American Lumber Co. v. Quiett Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- Berbarry v. . TombacherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- American Lumber Co. v. Drexel Furniture Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
3Cited by3 opinions
- Furst v. . TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
- Allen Ex Rel. Holderby v. Edna Cotton Mill, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
- Switzerland Co. v. North Carolina State Highway & Public Works CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939