Legal Opinion

Welles Co. v. . Satterfield

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 16, 1925PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClaekson, J.

Defendant repudiates his promise made to plaintiffs and sets up the defense “that the alleged contract ... is contrary to public policy and the statute law of the State of North Carolina, and this defendant pleads O. S., ch. 39, entitled 'Gaming Contracts and Futures,’ in bar of plaintiffs’ right to recover in this action.”

This brings us to consider the statute law on the subject. This is a matter of considerable importance to commercial transactions, and, notwithstanding their length, we give the statutes on the subject:

“C. S., 2144. Certain contracts as to ‘futures’ void. Every contract,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Orvis Bros. v. Holt-Morgan MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
  2. State v. McGinnis.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  3. Edgerton v. . EdgertonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
  4. Richardson v. . WoodruffSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
  5. Holt v. . WellonsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Fenner v. . TuckerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  2. Martin v. . BushSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  3. Martin v. BushSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  4. Richardson v. . WoodruffSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API