Williams v. Dixie Chevrolet Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
Stacy, C. J.,
after stating the case: The full significance and import of the first issue seems to have been overlooked on all hands. If the automobile purchased by the plaintiff were so defective “that it was not reasonably fit for the use for which it was intended,” then the plaintiff would be entitled to recover of the seller for want of consideration. Swift & Co. v. Aydlett, 192 N. C., 330, 135 S. E., 141; Register Co. v. Bradshaw, 174 N. C., 414, 93 S. E., 898; DeWitt v. Berry, 134 U. S., 306; 6 R. C. L., 684, et seq. Similarly, the seller would be entitled to recover over against the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- De Witt v. BerrySupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Swift Co. v. . AydlettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
- Swift & Co. v. AydlettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
- Ashford v. H. C. Shrader Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- Hall Furniture Co. v. Crane Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Perfecting Service Co. v. Product Development & Sales Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Perfecting Service Co. v. Product Development & Sales Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- Aldridge Motors, Inc. v. . AlexanderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- Stonestreet v. Southern Oil Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
- Hendrix v. B & L Motors, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.