Patrick v. . Lamm

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Patrick v. . Lamm

185 S.E. 433, 210 N.C. 821, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 237

DecidedApril 29, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 185 S.E. 433 (Patrick v. . Lamm) 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

Patrick v. . Lamm, 185 S.E. 433, 210 N.C. 821, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 237 (N.C. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

An examination of the testimony of the plaintiff and that of the witnesses offered in bis behalf fails to show evidence sufficient to be submitted to the jury that plaintiff by either written or oral agreement retained title to the property sold, or reserved or acquired a lien therein in any manner recognized by the law. Nor does the evidence sustain bis allegation that the provision for retention of title was omitted from the written contract by mutual mistake or the mistake of draftsman. Defendant admits that be owes the balance on the purchase price of the personal property. Plaintiff replies that by reason of the insolvency of defendant that admission is worthless. We are unable to relieve the plaintiff of the consequences of a bad bargain.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

An examination of the testimony of the plaintiff and that of the witnesses offered in bis behalf fails to show evidence sufficient to be submitted to the jury that plaintiff by either written or oral agreement retained title to the property sold, or reserved or acquired a lien therein in any manner recognized by the law. Nor does the evidence sustain bis allegation that the provision for retention of title was omitted from the written contract by mutual mistake or the mistake of draftsman. Defendant admits that be owes the balance on the purchase price of the personal property. Plaintiff replies that by reason of the insolvency of defendant that admission is worthless. We are unable to relieve the plaintiff of the consequences of a bad bargain.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 S.E. 433, 210 N.C. 821, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patrick-v-lamm-nc-1936.