Clements v. . State

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Clements v. . State

76 N.C. 199

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 5, 1877

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 76 N.C. 199 (Clements v. . State) 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

Clements v. . State, 76 N.C. 199 (N.C. 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

Reade, J.

In Bledsoe v. The State, 64 N. C. 392, we declared what we understood to be the practice in cases of this kind — to ascertain the facts by reference to our Clerk or to have issues for a jury. And when sufficiently informed of the facts we would declare the law.

We are of opinion that the repeal of the statute under wdiich the contract with the plaintiff is alleged to have been made, in no way affects the plaintiffs rights. And that it was not contemplated by the alleged contract that the plaintiff was to do the work here instead of at his works in Ohio ; or that convicts were to be sent to Ohio to do the work; but that they were to be employed upon such work only as was-necessarily to be done here, as fitting and hanging the door® and the like.

There will be issues for a jury.

1. Whether the contract was made as alleged.

2. Whether the plaintiff complied or was ready and offered and was able to comply with his part of the contract.

3. "Whether the State failed to comply with its part of the-contract. If so,

4. What damage did the plaintiff sustain by reason of the-failure of the State to comply with its part of the contract-.

The depositions on file, subject to all just exceptions will be read and other evidence heard. And the evidence and the finding of the jury and the rulings of His .Honor, with, all exceptions, will-be certified to this Court. ' • ■

PeR Cukiam. Order accordingly-

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

Reade, J.

In Bledsoe v. The State, 64 N. C. 392, we declared what we understood to be the practice in cases of this kind — to ascertain the facts by reference to our Clerk or to have issues for a jury. And when sufficiently informed of the facts we would declare the law.

We are of opinion that the repeal of the statute under wdiich the contract with the plaintiff is alleged to have been made, in no way affects the plaintiffs rights. And that it was not contemplated by the alleged contract that the plaintiff was to do the work here instead of at his works in Ohio ; or that convicts were to be sent to Ohio to do the work; but that they were to be employed upon such work only as was-necessarily to be done here, as fitting and hanging the door® and the like.

There will be issues for a jury.

1. Whether the contract was made as alleged.

2. Whether the plaintiff complied or was ready and offered and was able to comply with his part of the contract.

3. "Whether the State failed to comply with its part of the-contract. If so,

4. What damage did the plaintiff sustain by reason of the-failure of the State to comply with its part of the contract-.

The depositions on file, subject to all just exceptions will be read and other evidence heard. And the evidence and the finding of the jury and the rulings of His .Honor, with, all exceptions, will-be certified to this Court. ' • ■

PeR Cukiam. Order accordingly-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 N.C. 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clements-v-state-nc-1877.

Opinion

1. Whether the contract was made as alleged.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack