Shepherd v. . Refining Company
153 S.E. 927, 198 N.C. 824
Opinion
The nonsuit was entered on the theory that the plaintiff had failed to show a contract in writing, or any memorandum or *825 note thereof, signed by the party to be charged therewith, or by some other person by him thereto lawfully authorized, which described the property with sufficient definiteness to admit of identification as required by C. S., 988. In this we find no error.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Shepherd v. . Refining Company, 153 S.E. 927, 198 N.C. 824 (N.C. 1930).
153 S.E. 927 (Shepherd v. . Refining Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Grantham v. . Grantham
171 S.E. 331 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1933)