Stanton v. Bell
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From Edgecombe. The declaration In this case contained two counts. The first was in trover, to recover damages for the conversion of sixteen bales of cotton; and the second in case, for tortiously omitting and neglecting to perform and transact certain duties relative to the said cotton, which the Defendants had undertaken to perform. The facts of the case were these.
Read the full summary
From Edgecombe. The declaration In this case contained two counts. The first was in trover, to recover damages for the conversion of sixteen bales of cotton; and the second in case, for tortiously omitting and neglecting to perform and transact certain duties relative to the said cotton, which the Defendants had undertaken to perform. The facts of the case were these. The Plaintiffs were indebted to the Defendants, and having a quantity of cotton ready for market, on the 14th of February 1820, they were informed by a letier of the Defendants, that they were willing to take the cotton, ship it…
1Opinion of the Court
Hall, Judge.
From the facts stated in this case, particularly those disclosed by the. testimony of Gray Little, I think the Jury were at liberty to find a verdict for the Plaintiffs.
When-, one of the Defendants, wished to borrow money of the witness in Tarborough, rather than draw for it on the house of “, Sweeting & Sterret,” to which the cotton had been cons'gned, in Baltimore, it no doubt was because he considered the money would be more useful to him in Baltimore than it would be in Tarbo-rough. By electing to keep it there, he exercised an act of ownership over it; and by doing so he made…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Ivey v. Cotton Mills.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- Clott v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
- Dawson v. Fusco's Auto Service, Inc.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1941
- Hunter v. CommonwealthVirginia Circuit Court · 2003