Potter v. Tyndall
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
BALEY, Judge.
Appellant contends that appellees misled him by false statements and persuaded him to fertilize his tobacco with Na-Churs Plant Food. Na-Churs Plant Food was not suitable for use on tobacco, and appellant’s tobacco plants withered and died. Appellant does not seriously contend that Na-Churs’ Plant Food was a defective fertilizer; he admits in his brief that it was an entirely appropriate and safe fertilizer for use on certain crops, but not on tobacco. He contends that his losses were not caused by any inherent defects in the fertilizer, but by appellees’ express warranty of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Eisenstadt v. BairdSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Carrington v. RashSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Young v. . Whitehall Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
- State Ex Rel. North Carolina Milk Commission v. National Food Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- Cheek v. City of CharlotteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- L. Harvey and Son Co. v. JarmanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- Barber v. Continental Grain Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
- Potter v. TyndallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974