Winborne v. Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by defendant from Peebles, J., at September Term, 1915, of ChowaN. Oivil action to recover damages for alleged breach of contract on part of the defendant in failing to deliver 25,000 burlap bags, whereby plaintiff was greatly damaged.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from Peebles, J., at September Term, 1915, of ChowaN. Oivil action to recover damages for alleged breach of contract on part of the defendant in failing to deliver 25,000 burlap bags, whereby plaintiff was greatly damaged. On denial of liability, verdict was rendered as follows: 1. Was defendant’s failure to deliver these bags to the plaintiff caused by conditions or circumstances beyond the defendant’s control, as alleged ? 2. What damage, if any, is plaintiff company entitled to recover? The jury answered the first issue “No” and the second issue “$1,000 and interest.”…
1Opinion of the CourtHoke, J.
Plaintiff declared on and offered in evidence a written contract of sale of the burlap bags for October delivery, 1914, signed by both of the parties, the portions of same relevant to the inquiry being-in terms as follows;
Order No. 32.
Sold tO WlNBORNE & Co.
Routing, Norfolk, Ya. Skip about (see below).
Terms: Net 10 days. Payable at New York in New York funds.
Subject to revision at any time by our credit department.
Quantity Brands Price
25,000 Burlap Bags, 70 inches, 7y% oz. at $78.
Ship as ordered. During October, 1914; mostly between 10th and 20th.
Freight prepaid to Norfolk.
FREIGHT.
It is agreed…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Tillinghast v. Cotton Mills.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- Smith v. Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- Hosiery Co. v. Cotton Mills.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- Powell v. City of DuluthSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1903
- Exchange & Building Co. v. Roanoke Gas & Water Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1893
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.