Parris v. . Roberts

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Parris v. . Roberts

34 N.C. 268

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided August 5, 1851·Published

Opinion

In the charge of his Honor there is no error. By the contract between the plaintiff and Jones, the legal title to the horse sold is expressly reserved. The title did not pass to Jones — the sale was but conditional. Ellison v. Jones, 26 N.C. 48; Gaither v. Teague, id., 65. Here the plaintiff expressly reserves the title to the horse sold until the *Page 187 price is paid, and Jones, the purchaser, gave his note for the (270) price, which was not due when the constable sold. We are at a loss to perceive upon what principle the case was brought here.

PER CURIAM. No error.

Cited: Clayton v. Hester, 80 N.C. 277; Frick v. Hilliard, 95 N.C. 119;Butts v. Screws, id., 217; Whitlock v. Lumber Co., 145 N.C. 124.

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

In the charge of his Honor there is no error. By the contract between the plaintiff and Jones, the legal title to the horse sold is expressly reserved. The title did not pass to Jones — the sale was but conditional. Ellison v. Jones, 26 N.C. 48; Gaither v. Teague, id., 65. Here the plaintiff expressly reserves the title to the horse sold until the *Page 187 price is paid, and Jones, the purchaser, gave his note for the (270) price, which was not due when the constable sold. We are at a loss to perceive upon what principle the case was brought here.

PER CURIAM. No error.

Cited: Clayton v. Hester, 80 N.C. 277; Frick v. Hilliard, 95 N.C. 119;Butts v. Screws, id., 217; Whitlock v. Lumber Co., 145 N.C. 124.

Parris v. . Roberts, 34 N.C. 268 (N.C. 1851).

Pincite

34 N.C. 268 (Parris v. . Roberts) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related