Harvey v. . Hughes

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Harvey v. . Hughes

119 S.E. 924, 186 N.C. 236, 1923 N.C. LEXIS 217

DecidedOctober 10, 1923

StatusPublished

This text of 119 S.E. 924 (Harvey v. . Hughes) 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

Harvey v. . Hughes, 119 S.E. 924, 186 N.C. 236, 1923 N.C. LEXIS 217 (N.C. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, J.

In March, 1920, plaintiff sold to the defendant 68 shares of the capital stock of the Craven Tobacco Company at and for the price of $100 per share. Defendant paid $1,000 in cash and executed his note to the plaintiff for $5,800, representing the balance due on the purchase price of said stock. This suit is to recover on the note. Defendant denies liability on the ground of an alleged breach of warranty in connection with the value of said stock; and he seeks to recover, by way of counterclaim,, the $1,000 paid at the time of sale. The fifth issue is addressed to the counterclaim.

The controversy on trial narrowed itself principally to questions of fact, which the jury alone could determine. A careful perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that the case has been tried in substantial conformity to the law bearing on the subject, and we have found no sufficient reason, upon the exceptions presented, for disturbing the verdict.

The value of the stock at the time of trial evidently was greater than it was at the time of sale, or else a different verdict would have been rendered. But however this may be, his Honor has given the plaintiff an opportunity to redeem the stock by returning the cash payment of $1,000. Otherwise, under the verdict and judgment, the plaintiff' is entitled to keep the cash payment, and the defendant is entitled to retain the stock. This, as we understand it, is the correct interpretation of the verdict and judgment.

The record presents no reversible error, and hence the judgment below must be upheld.

No error.

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

Stacy, J.

In March, 1920, plaintiff sold to the defendant 68 shares of the capital stock of the Craven Tobacco Company at and for the price of $100 per share. Defendant paid $1,000 in cash and executed his note to the plaintiff for $5,800, representing the balance due on the purchase price of said stock. This suit is to recover on the note. Defendant denies liability on the ground of an alleged breach of warranty in connection with the value of said stock; and he seeks to recover, by way of counterclaim,, the $1,000 paid at the time of sale. The fifth issue is addressed to the counterclaim.

The controversy on trial narrowed itself principally to questions of fact, which the jury alone could determine. A careful perusal of the record leaves us with the impression that the case has been tried in substantial conformity to the law bearing on the subject, and we have found no sufficient reason, upon the exceptions presented, for disturbing the verdict.

The value of the stock at the time of trial evidently was greater than it was at the time of sale, or else a different verdict would have been rendered. But however this may be, his Honor has given the plaintiff an opportunity to redeem the stock by returning the cash payment of $1,000. Otherwise, under the verdict and judgment, the plaintiff' is entitled to keep the cash payment, and the defendant is entitled to retain the stock. This, as we understand it, is the correct interpretation of the verdict and judgment.

The record presents no reversible error, and hence the judgment below must be upheld.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 S.E. 924, 186 N.C. 236, 1923 N.C. LEXIS 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvey-v-hughes-nc-1923.