O'Neal v. Henry Seim & Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

O'Neal v. Henry Seim & Co.

73 S.E. 988, 158 N.C. 588, 1912 N.C. LEXIS 89

DecidedMarch 6, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 73 S.E. 988 (O'Neal v. Henry Seim & 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

O'Neal v. Henry Seim & Co., 73 S.E. 988, 158 N.C. 588, 1912 N.C. LEXIS 89 (N.C. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Upon an examination of the record we are of opinion that there is evidence which entitles the plaintiff to have his case considered by a jury.

It is in evidence that W. G. O’Neal, on 18 April, 1908, ordered for the plaintiff, from the defendant, 33 plate-glass mirrors 20x36, A plate, 30 division bars, 1 A plate-glass, 66x78, to be shipped at once, and notified -the defendant in the order that the mirrors were for the side walls of a restaurant; that the plaintiff was a contractor in "Washington, N. C., and was fitting up the restaurant under contract, and that by reason of the breach of the contract by the defendant he and at least. one employee, to whom he paid wages, remained idle fifteen or twenty days.

"W. G. O’Neal was a brother of the plaintiff, and there is evidence that he knew of the facts recited, and that he represented the defendant at "Washington.

There must be a new trial.

New trial.

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

Per Curiam.

Upon an examination of the record we are of opinion that there is evidence which entitles the plaintiff to have his case considered by a jury.

It is in evidence that W. G. O’Neal, on 18 April, 1908, ordered for the plaintiff, from the defendant, 33 plate-glass mirrors 20x36, A plate, 30 division bars, 1 A plate-glass, 66x78, to be shipped at once, and notified -the defendant in the order that the mirrors were for the side walls of a restaurant; that the plaintiff was a contractor in "Washington, N. C., and was fitting up the restaurant under contract, and that by reason of the breach of the contract by the defendant he and at least. one employee, to whom he paid wages, remained idle fifteen or twenty days.

"W. G. O’Neal was a brother of the plaintiff, and there is evidence that he knew of the facts recited, and that he represented the defendant at "Washington.

There must be a new trial.

New trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.E. 988, 158 N.C. 588, 1912 N.C. LEXIS 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oneal-v-henry-seim-co-nc-1912.