Bunn v. . Wall

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Bunn v. . Wall

104 S.E. 470, 180 N.C. 662, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 164

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 20, 1920

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 104 S.E. 470 (Bunn v. . Wall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bunn v. . Wall, 104 S.E. 470, 180 N.C. 662, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 164 (N.C. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

*663 Pee CttbiaM.

Parol evidence was admissible to establish the contract about the barn, although there was a written lease, because the two contracts were separate and distinct, and we are of opinion there was circumstantial evidence of authority on the part of Wall to make the contract.

The damages claimed are difficult of admeasurement, but not more so than those allowed in Spencer v. Hamilton, 113 N. C., 49, in which a counterclaim, alleging loss of crops by reason of a breach of contract to do certain ditching, was sustained.

No error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*663 Pee CttbiaM.

Parol evidence was admissible to establish the contract about the barn, although there was a written lease, because the two contracts were separate and distinct, and we are of opinion there was circumstantial evidence of authority on the part of Wall to make the contract.

The damages claimed are difficult of admeasurement, but not more so than those allowed in Spencer v. Hamilton, 113 N. C., 49, in which a counterclaim, alleging loss of crops by reason of a breach of contract to do certain ditching, was sustained.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 S.E. 470, 180 N.C. 662, 1920 N.C. LEXIS 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bunn-v-wall-nc-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack