Legal Opinion
Peele v. Hartsell
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided February 1, 1963No. 467PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSharp, J.
Plaintiffs 'have misconstrued the nature of the cause of action which they have stated. It is not in contract 'but in tort. Pinnix v. Toomey, 242 N.C. 358, 362, 87 S.E. 2d 893; 12 Am. Jur., Contracts, Section 458. Council v. Dickerson’s, Inc., 233 N.C. 472, 64 S.E. 2d 551.
The following observations of the Oklahoma Court in Jackson v. Central Torpedo Company, 117 Okla. 245, 246 Pac. 426, 46 A.L.R. 338, are pertinent:
“ 'If the transaction complained of had its origin in a contract which placed the parties in such a relation that, in attempting to perform the promised service, the tort was…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Pinnix v. ToomeySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- Mobile Life Insurance v. RandallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1883
- Council v. Dickerson's, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Hanes v. ShapiroSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Hanes v. . ShapiroSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Jewell v. PriceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. of Anchorage, Inc. v. Superior Burner Service Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1967
- Toone v. AdamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- Cox v. ShawSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Huyck Corp. v. C. C. Mangum, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.