Hardin v. . Murray
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil action, tried before Henry, J., at Fall Term, 1872, of the Superior Court of Buncombe. The complaint contained two causes of action : First, that the defendants, who were commission merchants in New York, had sold 132 bags of dried fruit for the plaintiffs and received the money and refused to pay it. Second, That the defendants,did not use due diligence in-selling a former lot of 134 bags of dried fruit, and unlawfully applied the proceeds of sale of the 132 bags.
Read the full summary
Civil action, tried before Henry, J., at Fall Term, 1872, of the Superior Court of Buncombe. The complaint contained two causes of action : First, that the defendants, who were commission merchants in New York, had sold 132 bags of dried fruit for the plaintiffs and received the money and refused to pay it. Second, That the defendants,did not use due diligence in-selling a former lot of 134 bags of dried fruit, and unlawfully applied the proceeds of sale of the 132 bags. The answer denied the material allegations in the complaint, and the following issue ivas .submitted to the jury: “ Did the…
1Opinion of the CourtBoyden, J.
In this case his Honor states that there was-much testimony, both oral and written, and that at the conclusion of his charge (without showing what his previous charge had been) the counsel on both sides were asked if there was anything overlooked, or anything special they desired given to the jury. To this the defendant’s counsel (the case states) asked the Court to charge the jury, that if they believed the deposition of the defendant, J. T. Murray,, the defendants had acted in the usual course of trade in making the sale of the plaintiff’s fruit. This his Honor refused,. remarking that…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cited by3 opinions
- McBryde v. . PattersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1875
- McDaniel v. . PollockSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
- Gaither v. . FerebeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1864