State v. . Clark

178 S.E. 119, 207 N.C. 657, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 239
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 28, 1935
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

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

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

Related

Luther v. Luther
67 S.E.2d 345 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1951)
Berry v. . Berry
1 S.E.2d 871 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
178 S.E. 119, 207 N.C. 657, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-clark-nc-1935.