Ranco Industrial Corp. v. Patelos Door Corp.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Ranco Industrial Corp. v. Patelos Door Corp.

193 S.E.2d 386, 17 N.C. App. 155, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1603

Court of Appeals of North Carolina·Decided December 20, 1972·No. No. 728DC810·Published

Opinion

GRAHAM, Judge.

Plaintiff’s assignments of error to the admission of testimony by the individual defendant as to the representations made by plaintiff’s agent when the spray was purchased are overruled.

The findings of fact made by the trial judge are supported by the evidence and must be sustained. The $271.30 awarded defendants is no more than they were entitled to, as a matter of law, under the court’s findings of fact. Under these circumstances, plaintiff was not prejudiced by the fact the court may have applied an inappropriate measure of damages. Cf. Motors, Inc. v. Allen, 11 N.C. App. 381, 181 S.E. 2d 134.

No error.

Judges Hedrick and Vaughn concur.

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

GRAHAM, Judge.

Plaintiff’s assignments of error to the admission of testimony by the individual defendant as to the representations made by plaintiff’s agent when the spray was purchased are overruled.

The findings of fact made by the trial judge are supported by the evidence and must be sustained. The $271.30 awarded defendants is no more than they were entitled to, as a matter of law, under the court’s findings of fact. Under these circumstances, plaintiff was not prejudiced by the fact the court may have applied an inappropriate measure of damages. Cf. Motors, Inc. v. Allen, 11 N.C. App. 381, 181 S.E. 2d 134.

No error.

Judges Hedrick and Vaughn concur.

Ranco Industrial Corp. v. Patelos Door Corp., 193 S.E.2d 386, 17 N.C. App. 155, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1603 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

193 S.E.2d 386 (Ranco Industrial Corp. v. Patelos Door Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related