Buffkins v. . Eason

16 S.E. 916, 112 N.C. 162

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: February 5, 1893
• Status: Published

Opinion

Clark, J.:

We concur with his Honor that the force and effect of the contract set out was to place the title to the entire crop in the plaintiff, until the amount therein specified was paid, and hence that claim and delivery would lie. The words, “I further agree that the title to the said crop shall be in the said Buff kins until,”, etc., admit of no other construction. They were so construed when the case was here before, 110 N. C., 264. The case then went back because it did not appear that the execution of the contract of sale was proved. On this trial its execution was admitted by the defendant.

The allegation in the complaint of title to the corn was denied by the' answer. The Court therefore properly held that no demand was necessary and committed no error in withdrawing an issue, previously submitted, as. to whether or not there had been a demand made before action brought. Vincent v. Corbin, 85 N. C., 108; Waddell v Swann, 91 N. C., 108; Wiley v. Logan, 95 N. C., 358.

No Error.