Croom v. . Bryant

140 S.E. 621, 194 N.C. 815, 1927 N.C. LEXIS 255
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided December 14, 1927·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Pee OubiaM.

The contract of agency is not seriously questioned, though it is contended that the power of agency, being revocable as it was not coupled with an interest, was revoked before the plaintiff produced a purchaser ready, able and willing to take the property, and who did later purchase it direct from the owner, defendant herein. This was purely a question of fact which the jury has determined in favor of the plaintiff. The law of the case is settled in Auction Co. v. Brittain, 182 N. C., 676, 110 S. E., 82; House v. Abell, ibid., 619, 109 S. E., 877; Aycock v. Bogue, ibid., 105, 108 S. E., 434.

No error.

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

Croom v. . Bryant, 140 S.E. 621, 194 N.C. 815, 1927 N.C. LEXIS 255 (N.C. 1927).

140 S.E. 621 (Croom v. . Bryant) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Aycock v. . Bogue
108 S.E. 434 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)