Moody v. Cullowhee Mining & Reduction Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Moody v. Cullowhee Mining & Reduction Co.

78 S.E. 1039, 162 N.C. 456, 1913 N.C. LEXIS 371

DecidedMay 28, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 78 S.E. 1039 (Moody v. Cullowhee Mining & Reduction 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

Moody v. Cullowhee Mining & Reduction Co., 78 S.E. 1039, 162 N.C. 456, 1913 N.C. LEXIS 371 (N.C. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, O. J.

The plaintiffs claim damages by reason of defendant’s failure to give them the hauling contracted for, the plaintiffs having gone to considerable expense to equip themselves with team for the work.

There are numerous exceptions, but the controverted matters are substantially as to the facts, and these were properly submitted to the jury. The defendant earnestly contended that there was not sufficient evidence or data from which the jury could find, with any certainty, the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiffs in consequence of the breach of contract, if the jury should find, as they did, that the contract was broken by the defendant, and that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. But upon examination of the evidence we find sufficient to go to the jury upon all the issues submitted. After full consideration of the record and *457 tbe exceptions, and tbe very full brief filed by counsel for tbe defendant, we think tbe case has been fairly tried, and that tbe defendant has no canse to complain of error in any of tbe par-. ticulars assigned.

No error.

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

Clark, O. J.

The plaintiffs claim damages by reason of defendant’s failure to give them the hauling contracted for, the plaintiffs having gone to considerable expense to equip themselves with team for the work.

There are numerous exceptions, but the controverted matters are substantially as to the facts, and these were properly submitted to the jury. The defendant earnestly contended that there was not sufficient evidence or data from which the jury could find, with any certainty, the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiffs in consequence of the breach of contract, if the jury should find, as they did, that the contract was broken by the defendant, and that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. But upon examination of the evidence we find sufficient to go to the jury upon all the issues submitted. After full consideration of the record and *457 tbe exceptions, and tbe very full brief filed by counsel for tbe defendant, we think tbe case has been fairly tried, and that tbe defendant has no canse to complain of error in any of tbe par-. ticulars assigned.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 S.E. 1039, 162 N.C. 456, 1913 N.C. LEXIS 371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moody-v-cullowhee-mining-reduction-co-nc-1913.