Legal Opinion

EASTERN CAROLINA FEED & SEED COMPANY v. Mann

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 27, 1963No. 23PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtDenny, C.J.

Ordinarily, there is an implied warranty that feed is reasonably fit for the use contemplated by both the seller and the purchaser. Jones v. Mills, Inc., 250 N.C. 527, 108 S.E. 2d 917; Keith v. Gregg, 210 N.C. 802, 188 S.E. 849; Poovey v. Sugar Co., 191 N.C. 722, 133 S.E. 12.

There can be no denial of the fact that the plaintiff knew for what purpose the feed furnished or sold by it was being used by the defendant. Therefore, in our opinion, the ruling sustaining the demurrer to the defendant’s first counterclaim on the ground that no- cause of action is stated with respect to the loss of…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. Bird v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1901
  2. Lewis v. . WatsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  3. Perkins v. LangdonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  4. Poovey v. International Sugar Feed No. Two Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  5. State v. . FriddleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. PittmanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971

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

Powered by the Exa API