Shelton v. Tuttle Motor Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1DissentDeviN, J.
I do not think tbe defendant should be permitted to retain tbe plaintiff’s money without consideration indefinitely, when by tbe rationing orders and regulations of tbe Federal Government, made pursuant to authority of tbe Acts of Congress in aid of tbe war effort of our country, tbe plaintiff has been prevented from buying and equally tbe defendant from selling tbe automobile about wbicb tbe original contract was made. It seems to me tbe ends of justice would be met by adhering to tbe rule established in such cases by tbe Federal Regulations, and restoring tbe parties to their original…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Home Building & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Horowitz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- Allanwilde Transport Corp. v. Vacuum Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Earn Line S. S. Co. v. Sutherland S. S. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1920
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.