Durham Fertilizer Co. v. L. M. Little & Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil aotioN, tried- before Tirriberlalce, J., at August Term, 1895, of UnioN Superior Court. The affidavit upon which defendants were arrested is as follows: James Hayes, being duly sworn, says : “1. That he is the agent of Durham Fertilizer Company, •a corporation created under the laws of the State of North Carolina, and doing business at Durham, North Carolina.
Read the full summary
Civil aotioN, tried- before Tirriberlalce, J., at August Term, 1895, of UnioN Superior Court. The affidavit upon which defendants were arrested is as follows: James Hayes, being duly sworn, says : “1. That he is the agent of Durham Fertilizer Company, •a corporation created under the laws of the State of North Carolina, and doing business at Durham, North Carolina. “ 2. That, on the 5th day of February, 1891, the defendants, L. M. Little & Co., composed of the defendants, L. M. Little and J. W. Hasty, entered into a contract with the plaintiff, (a copy of which is hereto attached as a part of…
1Dissent
Avery, J.:
I dissent from so much of the opinion as holds the defendant, Little, to be liable to arrest. Bridgers v. Taylor, 102 N. C., 86.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bridgers v. . TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889