Legal Opinion

Freeman v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 11, 1933PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

That the defendant had the right, under its contract, peaceably to repossess the automobile is not questioned. Jackson v. Hall, 84 N. C., 489; Hinson v. Smith, 118 N. C., 503, 24 S. E., 541; Moore v. Hurtt, 124 N. C., 27, 32 S. E., 317; Harris v. R. R., 190 N. C., 480, 130 S. E., 319; Willis v. Whittle, 82 S. C., 500, 64 S. E., 410; 24 R. C. L., 486.

Did its agent commit a trespass in repossessing the car ? This is the only mooted point in the case. The trial court was of opinion that he did not, which position is strongly supported by the decision in Willis v. Whittle, supra, a South Carolina…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. State v. . OxendineSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  2. State v. DavenportSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  3. Harris v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  4. State v. . DavenportSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  5. Hinson v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Smith v. VonCannonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
  2. Kirby v. Jules Chain Stores Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  3. Binder v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  4. Reeves v. MeltonCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 1974
  5. Giles v. First Virginia Credit Services, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002

6 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