Huffines v. J. I. Case Threshing MacHine Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Huffines v. J. I. Case Threshing MacHine Co.

67 S.E. 1008, 152 N.C. 522, 1910 N.C. LEXIS 310

DecidedMay 4, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 67 S.E. 1008 (Huffines v. J. I. Case Threshing MacHine 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

Huffines v. J. I. Case Threshing MacHine Co., 67 S.E. 1008, 152 N.C. 522, 1910 N.C. LEXIS 310 (N.C. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, C. J.

Tbis is an action to recover $525 wbicb bad been paid as tbe purchase price of a threshing machine bought' of tbe defendant in 1902. In 1904, and again in 1905, on complaint of tbe plaintiff, tbe defendant sent out an agent to correct defects which tbe complaint avers tbe agent was unable to do, and, indeed, that tbe agent sent by tbe defendant in 1905 made many changes in tbe construction .of said machine, tbe result of wbicb rendered it useless and totally unfit to do any satisfactory work. There was evidence to support tbis view of tbe case, and tbe jury, upon proper instructions from tbe court, found a verdict in favor of tbe plaintiff for $325.12. There were a great number of exceptions taken as to tbe matter of tbe warranty in tbe original contract of sale and a breach thereof, and a waiver by tbe plaintiff in not giving notice in tbe stipulated time and retaining tbe machine. But these were irrelevant, as such matters were merely narrative of tbe facts leading up to tbe cause of action stated in tbe complaint, wbicb was for tbe damage done tbe machine by tbe agent sent out in 1905. If there was error in these other respects it was harmless error. Tbe real cause of action was properly submitted to tbe jury.

Tbe admission of improper evidence tending to show a verbal guarantee by tbe agent at tbe time of sale was cured by striking out that evidence and withdrawing it from tbe consideration of tbe jury. Medlin v. Simpson, 144 N. C., 399.

No error.

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

Clark, C. J.

Tbis is an action to recover $525 wbicb bad been paid as tbe purchase price of a threshing machine bought' of tbe defendant in 1902. In 1904, and again in 1905, on complaint of tbe plaintiff, tbe defendant sent out an agent to correct defects which tbe complaint avers tbe agent was unable to do, and, indeed, that tbe agent sent by tbe defendant in 1905 made many changes in tbe construction .of said machine, tbe result of wbicb rendered it useless and totally unfit to do any satisfactory work. There was evidence to support tbis view of tbe case, and tbe jury, upon proper instructions from tbe court, found a verdict in favor of tbe plaintiff for $325.12. There were a great number of exceptions taken as to tbe matter of tbe warranty in tbe original contract of sale and a breach thereof, and a waiver by tbe plaintiff in not giving notice in tbe stipulated time and retaining tbe machine. But these were irrelevant, as such matters were merely narrative of tbe facts leading up to tbe cause of action stated in tbe complaint, wbicb was for tbe damage done tbe machine by tbe agent sent out in 1905. If there was error in these other respects it was harmless error. Tbe real cause of action was properly submitted to tbe jury.

Tbe admission of improper evidence tending to show a verbal guarantee by tbe agent at tbe time of sale was cured by striking out that evidence and withdrawing it from tbe consideration of tbe jury. Medlin v. Simpson, 144 N. C., 399.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 S.E. 1008, 152 N.C. 522, 1910 N.C. LEXIS 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huffines-v-j-i-case-threshing-machine-co-nc-1910.