Legal Opinion

Puffer v. . Lucas

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 5, 1893PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

* BURWELL, J., did not sit on the hearing of this appeal. It was alleged by plaintiffs and admitted by defendant that the plaintiffs delivered the machine in controversy to one S. Eifert by a lease contract, which was duly made and registered in New Hanover County 5 December, 1884, which is as follows:

"Know all men by these presents, That I, S. Eifert, No. 16 South Second street, of Wilmington, State of North Carolina, have hired, leased and received of A. D. Puffer Sons Manufacturing Company, of Boston, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for the term, to wit, one year ending 5 December, 1885,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Vickers v. . LeighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
  2. Hamilton v. . HighlandsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
  3. Reynolds v. . SmathersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
  4. Foreman v. . DrakeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
  5. Hogan v. . KirklandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1870

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Blackford v. NeavesArizona Supreme Court · 1922
  2. Quality Clothes Shop v. KeeneyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1914
  3. SZABO FOOD SERV., INC., OF NORTH CAROLINA v. Balentines, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  4. Prather v. BrandonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1909
  5. Yellowstone Sheep Co. v. EllisWyoming Supreme Court · 1939

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

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

Powered by the Exa API