State v. . Clark

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Clark

178 S.E. 119, 207 N.C. 657, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 239

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 28, 1935·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The judgment as for contempt is not supported by the ‘ record. C. S., 985. The exact details of the proposed consent judgment in the partition proceeding were never agreed upon, either by the parties or their counsel. Nor was the judgment ever presented to the court for approval. It is not an unusual experience for proposed agreements to fail when it comes to putting them in writing. Misunderstandings arise over details and forms of expression. From parol to writing is not always an easy step- to take in the negotiation of agreements. It sometimes proves unsuccessful. The record discloses just such a stumble in the instant case, and apparently no more.

Error.

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

Stacy, C. J.

The judgment as for contempt is not supported by the ‘ record. C. S., 985. The exact details of the proposed consent judgment in the partition proceeding were never agreed upon, either by the parties or their counsel. Nor was the judgment ever presented to the court for approval. It is not an unusual experience for proposed agreements to fail when it comes to putting them in writing. Misunderstandings arise over details and forms of expression. From parol to writing is not always an easy step- to take in the negotiation of agreements. It sometimes proves unsuccessful. The record discloses just such a stumble in the instant case, and apparently no more.

Error.

State v. . Clark, 178 S.E. 119, 207 N.C. 657, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 239 (N.C. 1935).

Pincite

178 S.E. 119 (State v. . Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related