Bushnell v. Bertolett

153 N.C. 564
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided December 7, 1910·Published

Opinions

Brown, J.

Tbis action is brought for the purpose of charging the estate of the feme defendant with the sum of $330.75 for a breach of contract in refusing to take and pay for a lot of apple trees. Tbe defendant accepted and paid for $40.00 worth of trees and refused to accept and pay for the others. Tbe following is the alleged contract or order for the trees.

Memo, of Apple Trees — Season 1907-8.

800 Delicious apple trees.

600 Stamen winesaps.

600 Grimes golden.

450 Rome Beauties.

5 Jonathan.

5 Senators.

5 Benoni.

5 Livland Raspberry.

5 Jeffries.

(Signed) Mes. J. R. Bebtolett.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the husband consented in writing to the above order, yet the contract is one that [565] cannot be enforced against the feme defendant and bis Honor should have sustained the demurrer.

This is in conformity with a uniform line of decisions many in number beginning with Harris v. Jenkins, 72 N. C., 183, and ending with Bank v. Benbow, 150 N. C., 782. Reversed.

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

Bushnell v. Bertolett, 153 N.C. 564 (N.C. 1910).

153 N.C. 564 (Bushnell v. Bertolett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harris v. . Jenkins, Public Treasurer
72 N.C. 183 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1875)
Hanover National Bank v. Howell
23 S.E. 1005 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)
A. Brinkley & Co. v. Ballance
35 S.E. 631 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1900)
Vann v. Edwards.
67 L.R.A. 461 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1904)
Vann v. Edwards
128 N.C. 425 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1901)