Currie v. . Hawkins
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was a oiviu aotioN, brought for the recovery of compensation for an alleged deficiency in the area of a tract of land sold by defendant to plaintiff, and tried at Pall Term, 1895, of the Superior Court of Montgomery County, before Norwood, Judge. The plaintiff appealed. The facts bearingupon the points determined by the Court are set out in the opinion of Associate Justice Montgomery.
1Opinion of the Court
Montgomery, J.:
The plaintiff’s complaint sets out two causes of action. In the first it is alleged that, by the terms of a deed executed to the plaintiff by the defendant, it is stipulated that if it should turn out that the timber on any part of the land conveyed should prove to have been “ boxed ” or worked for turpentine before the execution of the deed, then such lands should be estimated at fifty cents per acre, whereas $3.68 was the amount paid peí acre for the land.
The plaintiffs allege further as to the first cause of action that, subsequently to the execution of the deed and the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Webster v. . SharpeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
- Gudger v. . HensleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1880
- Brown v. . RickardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- McGee v. . CravenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- Davis v. . StroudSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Houston v. . ThorntonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
- Smith v. Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
- Hoots v. CalawaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- Brown v. . HobbsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Stern v. BenbowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.