Mayo v. . Gardner
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an action of assumpsit, tried before Mauly, Judge, at the Spring Term, 1857, of Edgecombe Superior Court. The plaintiff declared, 1st, upon an oral warranty of the merchantable character of certain turpentine bought from the defendant. 2ndly. Upon a failure to perform an award.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, tried before Mauly, Judge, at the Spring Term, 1857, of Edgecombe Superior Court. The plaintiff declared, 1st, upon an oral warranty of the merchantable character of certain turpentine bought from the defendant. 2ndly. Upon a failure to perform an award. The plaintiff proved that, in August, 1854, he bought of the defendant seventy-four barrels of turpentine for $248; that the same was present at the landing when the trade was made, and it was agreed that plaintiff should take the turpentine as it was, without inspection. The most of the price was paid down,…
1Opinion of the CourtNash, C. J.
There is error. The Court below was of opinion that the plaintiff could not recover, upon the ground, we suppose, (for no reason is assigned,) that there was no consideration for the new implied promise on the part of the defendant. The original contract was at an end, but in consequence of the insufficiency of the barrels, a considerable quantity of the turpentine ran out, which by the direction of the plaintiff was scraped up, and restored to the barrels. It was then agreed between the parties, tli at a Mr. Grimmer should inspect the turpentine, and what he condemned for dirt plaintiff…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Bohannon v. TrotmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Bohannon v. . TrotmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Beck v. . Wilkins-Ricks CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- Armstrong v. . PolakavetzSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
- Peyton v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.