Legal Opinion

Wilson v. EZ Flo Chemical Company

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 16, 1972No. 119PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HIGGINS, Justice.

The facts in this case are not in dispute. The evidence is free of any contradiction. The parties admit the plaintiff, a truck farmer, properly prepared his soil and on March 19, 1969, planted eighteen and one-half acres of squash. That day he consulted Mr. Daughtry, an agent of E-Z Flo, stating he needed a pre-emergent herbicide to kill weeds and grass and requested that Mr. Daughtry recommend and supply him with a chemical suitable for immediate use on yellow squash.

E-Z Flo Chemical Company was not an agent of Uniroyal, but carried Alanap and another herbicide in stock. Mr.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Corprew v. Geigy Chemical CorporationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  2. EI DuPONT DE NEM. & CO. v. LadnerMississippi Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Terry v. Double Cola Bottling CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  4. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. LadnerMississippi Supreme Court · 1954
  5. Simpson v. American Oil Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Purvis v. PPG Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1987
  2. Ziglar v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  3. Kennedy v. Mobay Corp.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1990
  4. Slemmons v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1978
  5. Lyon v. Shelter Resources Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979

8 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