Dozier v. . Wood

181 S.E. 336, 208 N.C. 414, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 430
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 18, 1935
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 181 S.E. 336 (Dozier v. . Wood) 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
Dozier v. . Wood, 181 S.E. 336, 208 N.C. 414, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 430 (N.C. 1935).

Opinion

Stacy, O. J.

Little can or need be added to wbat was said in the two opinions filed in the case of Peele v. Powell, 156 N. C., 553, 73 S. E., 234, on rehearing, 161 N. C., 50, 76 S. E., 698, on the difference between an original promise, which is not within the statute of frauds, and a superadded one, which is within the statute. C. S., 987. The difference in statement is clear enough. Difficulty often arises, however, in determining whether the evidence in a given case places it in the one category or the other. Gennett v. Lyerly, 207 N. C., 201, 176 S. E., 275; Garren v. Youngblood, 207 N. C., 86, 176 S. E., 252. The solution, in such instances, generally lies in summoning the aid of a jury. Whitehurst v. Padgett, 157 N. C., 424, 73 S. E., 240. And so, in the instant case, we think the evidence is susceptible of an interpretation which requires its submission to the twelve. Taylor v. Lee, 187 N. C., 393, 121 S. E., 659.

On demurrer to the evidence or motion to nonsuit under the Hinsdale Act, C. S., 567, the plaintiff is entitled to a liberal view of evidence. Lincoln v. R. R., 207 N. C., 787, 178 S. E., 601. Discrepancies and contradictions, even in jdaintiff’s evidence, are matters for the jury, and not for the court. Newby v. Realty Co., 182 N. C., 34, 108 S. E., 323; Shell v. Roseman, 155 N. C., 90, 71 S. E., 86.

The true character of a promise, whether original or superadded, does not depend altogether on the form of expression. The situation of the parties should be considered and whether they understood it to be collateral or direct. Dale v. Lbr. Co., 152 N. C., 651, 68 S. E., 134; Davis v. Patrick, 141 U. S., 479; Emerson v. Slater, 63 U. S., 28.

Reversed.

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

Related

Ebb Corp. v. Glidden
360 S.E.2d 808 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1987)
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Foil
202 S.E.2d 591 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1974)
Baker v. MALAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
121 S.E.2d 731 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1961)
Warren v. White
112 S.E.2d 522 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
Pemberton v. Lewis
69 S.E.2d 512 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Waller
64 S.E.2d 826 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)
Goldsmith v. Erwin
183 F.2d 432 (Fourth Circuit, 1950)
Farmers Federation, Inc. v. . Morris
27 S.E.2d 80 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
Industrial Bank of Elizabeth City v. Resolute Fire Insurance
26 S.E.2d 862 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
Ward v. . Smith
25 S.E.2d 463 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
Standard Oil Co. v. Midgett
116 F.2d 562 (Fourth Circuit, 1941)
Balentine v. . Gill
11 S.E.2d 456 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Beck v. Hooks
218 N.C. 105 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Calhoun v. Nantahala Power & Light Co.
216 N.C. 256 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Gunn v. Blue Bird Taxi Co.
193 S.E. 747 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Brown v. . Benton
183 S.E. 292 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
181 S.E. 336, 208 N.C. 414, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dozier-v-wood-nc-1935.