Polansky v. . Pangle

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Polansky v. . Pangle

199 S.E. 402, 214 N.C. 839, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 440

DecidedNovember 9, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 199 S.E. 402 (Polansky v. . Pangle) 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

Polansky v. . Pangle, 199 S.E. 402, 214 N.C. 839, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 440 (N.C. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion in receivership cause to abate purchase price of stock of goods for shortage in inventory, or to rescind sale.

Upon issues joined, the matter was tried before a jury at the March Term, 1938, general county court, and resulted in abatement of purchase price according to the shortage in quantity of amount sold as per inventory. On appeal to the Superior Court it was held that movant was not entitled to judgment for rescission, but the cause was remanded for error in computation. This error was corrected at the August Term of the general county court, and the movant again appealed, alleging error in computation and in the refusal to set aside the sale and to enter judgment of rescission.

The Superior Court overruled the first exception and held that the second was res judicata.

From this ruling, movant appeals, assigning errors. The matter has been heard twice in the general county court and as many times in the Superior Court. No reversible error has been made to appear.

Affirmed.

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

Motion in receivership cause to abate purchase price of stock of goods for shortage in inventory, or to rescind sale.

Upon issues joined, the matter was tried before a jury at the March Term, 1938, general county court, and resulted in abatement of purchase price according to the shortage in quantity of amount sold as per inventory. On appeal to the Superior Court it was held that movant was not entitled to judgment for rescission, but the cause was remanded for error in computation. This error was corrected at the August Term of the general county court, and the movant again appealed, alleging error in computation and in the refusal to set aside the sale and to enter judgment of rescission.

The Superior Court overruled the first exception and held that the second was res judicata.

From this ruling, movant appeals, assigning errors. The matter has been heard twice in the general county court and as many times in the Superior Court. No reversible error has been made to appear.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 S.E. 402, 214 N.C. 839, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polansky-v-pangle-nc-1938.