Observer Co. v. Remedy Sales Corp.

85 S.E. 33, 169 N.C. 251, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 196
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 5, 1915·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Pee Cueiam:.

We have carefully examined the exceptions relied on by the defendant and find no reversible error.

The admission of the correctness of the account, when it was presented to the defendant, by Mr. Powers, who was then its secretary, treasurer, *252 and general manager, was sufficient to carry tbe case to tbe jury, and there was other evidence tending to sustain tbe plaintiff’s claim.

Tbe letter of Guy Y. Barnes was competent, but its effect was dependent upon tbe evidence introduced to show bis authority to bind tbe defendant or of ratification by tbe defendant.

Tbe statement by Powers, that be understood that Barnes was manager of tbe defendant company prior to tbe time be became manager, was objectionable as hearsay; but no barm came to tbe defendant from tbe refusal to strike out this evidence, because tbe books of tbe company were admitted in evidence, and they showed that Barnes bad been manager, and tbe date of bis election. ’

Tbe statement of bis Honor, during tbe argument of tbe defendant for a judgment of nonsuit, that one man could represent one-balf dozen different corporations, was true, and in any event could not have affected tbe verdict.

No error.

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

Observer Co. v. Remedy Sales Corp., 85 S.E. 33, 169 N.C. 251, 1915 N.C. LEXIS 196 (N.C. 1915).

85 S.E. 33 (Observer Co. v. Remedy Sales Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tolley v. Dairymen's Creamery, Inc.
7 S.E.2d 502 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Alexander v. . Cedar Works
98 S.E. 312 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1919)
Alexander v. Richmond Cedar Works
177 N.C. 137 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1919)