Donaldson v. Benton

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Donaldson v. Benton

20 N.C. 435

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 15, 1839

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 20 N.C. 435 (Donaldson v. Benton) 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

Donaldson v. Benton, 20 N.C. 435 (N.C. 1839).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaston, Judge.

It cannot be contended that Bank notes are a lawful tender, and it is equally plain that parol evidence is not admissible to contradict the written agreement. The opinion of the Judge is so obviously right upon both these points — each of which is fatal to the plaintiff’s recovery— that it necessarily follows that the judgment must be affirmed with costs.

Per Curiam,. ■ Judgment affirmed.

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

Gaston, Judge.

It cannot be contended that Bank notes are a lawful tender, and it is equally plain that parol evidence is not admissible to contradict the written agreement. The opinion of the Judge is so obviously right upon both these points — each of which is fatal to the plaintiff’s recovery— that it necessarily follows that the judgment must be affirmed with costs.

Per Curiam,. ■ Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 N.C. 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donaldson-v-benton-nc-1839.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack