Legal Opinion

Goldston Brothers v. Newkirk

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 11, 1951No. 241PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.

The contract declared on provides that the plaintiff shall be paid “at the close of sale ten per cent in cash of the gross receipts of sale, as evidenced by contracts signed by purchasers.” The contract also stipulates that the plaintiff shall collect for the defendants “the first payment on the property sold.”

Hence, plaintiff’s duties did not terminate on knocking the land off to the high bidders. Plaintiff was required to close the sale for the defendants by collecting the initial payments of purchase money and turning over to defendants purchasers who were bound by signed contracts. These…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Jones v. Palace Realty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  2. Mizell v. . BurnettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1857
  3. McCurry v. . PurgasonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  4. Chamblee v. . BakerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
  5. Ducker v. . CochraneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Whitt v. GodwinSupreme Court of Virginia · 1965
  2. Whalehead Properties v. Coastland Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  3. Scott v. United Carolina BankCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1998
  4. Thormer v. LEXINGTON MAIL ORDER COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  5. Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Company v. Academy Financial Assets, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2023

10 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