Twin City Motor Co. v. Rouzer Motor Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
Clarkson, J.(1) Is the description in the conditional sales agreement sufficient for the purpose of identifying the property in question? "We think so. The facts agreed to in regard to the description is as follows: One S. H. coupe No., Model T. (hereafter called the “car”). The-abbreviation of the words “second-hand” is S. H., and the words “Model T” in said agreement refer to a particular type of Ford automobile. The same was purchased from Rouzer Motor Company on 3 May, 1926, by 'William Simpson, being one S. H. coupe No., Model T, and the only automobile owned by William Simpson.
Both…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hickson Lumber Co. v. Gay Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- Johnson v. YatesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
- Standard Dry-Kiln Co. v. EllingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Atkinson v. . GravesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
- Sharpe v. . PearceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1876
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Peek v. Wachovia Bank & Trust CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- Anderson v. American Mutual Liability InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Goodrich Silvertown Stores v. CaesarSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
- K. C. Tire Co. v. Way Motor Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1930
- Allied Investment Co. v. ShaneyfeltNebraska Supreme Court · 1956
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.