Gunter v. J. E. Latham Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Gunter v. J. E. Latham Co.

182 S.E. 661, 208 N.C. 855, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 178

DecidedDecember 11, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 182 S.E. 661 (Gunter v. J. E. Latham Co.) 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

Gunter v. J. E. Latham Co., 182 S.E. 661, 208 N.C. 855, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 178 (N.C. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cubiak.

In the absence of allegations in the complaint showing that defendant had breached its contract with the plaintiff, with respect to the properties described in the contract, the demurrer ore tenus was properly sustained.

The order of the defendant that work on one of the properties described in the contract be discontinued, did not constitute a breach of the contract, which is in writing. No facts are alleged in the complaint which show that such order was made arbitrarily, or with intent to injure the plaintiff. The contract expressly provides that work on the properties should be continued or discontinued in the discretion of the defendant, who had advanced all the money for the purchase and operation of the properties.

The judgment is

Affirmed.

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

Pee Cubiak.

In the absence of allegations in the complaint showing that defendant had breached its contract with the plaintiff, with respect to the properties described in the contract, the demurrer ore tenus was properly sustained.

The order of the defendant that work on one of the properties described in the contract be discontinued, did not constitute a breach of the contract, which is in writing. No facts are alleged in the complaint which show that such order was made arbitrarily, or with intent to injure the plaintiff. The contract expressly provides that work on the properties should be continued or discontinued in the discretion of the defendant, who had advanced all the money for the purchase and operation of the properties.

The judgment is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 S.E. 661, 208 N.C. 855, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gunter-v-j-e-latham-co-nc-1935.