Kellam v. Brown

112 N.C. 451
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 15, 1893·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

MacRa'e, J.:

We have been favored with neither argument nor brief by defendant’s counsel. On examination of the record we find certain objections to depositions, and to some of the questions and answers therein, and exceptions noted to his Honor’s rulings, but they are not stated in the case on appeal, and we must presume that they are not now insisted on.

The defendant excepts to the instructions given by his Honor as to assignment of the claim sued upon to plaintiffs. Without any suggestion as to the error in this instruction we have been unable to discover it.

The agreement between the parties is not such as is contended by defendant in that it would constitute the defendant a factor or commission merchant, the agent of the plaintiff for the sale of the goods mentioned, but clearly contemplates a sale. We concur in the views of his Honor as expressed in his instructions to the jury. There is

No Error.

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

Kellam v. Brown, 112 N.C. 451 (N.C. 1893).

112 N.C. 451 (Kellam v. Brown) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Strauss Bros. v. Wisconsin Trust Co.
229 F. 695 (Seventh Circuit, 1916)
In re Rabenau
118 F. 471 (W.D. New York, 1902)
Arbuckle Bros. v. Gates & Brown
30 S.E. 496 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1898)
Norwegian Plow Co. v. Clark
70 N.W. 808 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1897)