Highsmith v. . Ewing

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Highsmith v. . Ewing

9 S.E.2d 506, 217 N.C. 797, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 355

DecidedJune 19, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 9 S.E.2d 506 (Highsmith v. . Ewing) 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

Highsmith v. . Ewing, 9 S.E.2d 506, 217 N.C. 797, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 355 (N.C. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The legal questions involved are not altogether free from difficulty, albeit the Challes R. Barnes Lumber Company, who has received payment for the lumber in question, is not a party to the action. Plaintiff omits to explain why he declined to fill the order for the Barnes Lumber Company when he had the needed lumber on hand. Nevertheless, all disputed matters were submitted to the jury and resolved in favor of the plaintiff. It would seem that the verdict might well have been otherwise. However, the issue was for the jury. No doubt the defendant’s failure to protect himself by refusing to pay the lumber company after notice of plaintiff’s claim had much to do with the result. The exceptive assignments of error are apparently insufficient to warrant a new trial. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

The legal questions involved are not altogether free from difficulty, albeit the Challes R. Barnes Lumber Company, who has received payment for the lumber in question, is not a party to the action. Plaintiff omits to explain why he declined to fill the order for the Barnes Lumber Company when he had the needed lumber on hand. Nevertheless, all disputed matters were submitted to the jury and resolved in favor of the plaintiff. It would seem that the verdict might well have been otherwise. However, the issue was for the jury. No doubt the defendant’s failure to protect himself by refusing to pay the lumber company after notice of plaintiff’s claim had much to do with the result. The exceptive assignments of error are apparently insufficient to warrant a new trial. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 S.E.2d 506, 217 N.C. 797, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/highsmith-v-ewing-nc-1940.