Surratt v. . Kluttz

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Surratt v. . Kluttz

119 S.E. 926, 186 N.C. 777, 1923 N.C. LEXIS 355

DecidedNovember 21, 1923

StatusPublished

This text of 119 S.E. 926 (Surratt v. . Kluttz) 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

Surratt v. . Kluttz, 119 S.E. 926, 186 N.C. 777, 1923 N.C. LEXIS 355 (N.C. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Civil action tried upon the following issues:

"1. Did the defendant contract to buy of the plaintiffs 150,000 feet of lumber at $50 a thousand as alleged in the complaint? Answer: `Yes.'

"2. If so, did the defendant breach the said contract, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: `Yes.'

"3. What damage, if any, has the plaintiffs sustained by reason thereof? Answer: `$2,825.'"

By consent of plaintiff, the amount of damages was reduced to $2,000 and judgment entered therefor. Defendant appealed. The trial of this cause reduced itself to a controversy over issues of fact, which the jury alone could determine. A careful perusal of the record convinces us that the case has been tried substantially in accordance with the law bearing on the subject, and we have discovered no ruling or action on the part of the trial court which would seem to require another hearing. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

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

Civil action tried upon the following issues:

"1. Did the defendant contract to buy of the plaintiffs 150,000 feet of lumber at $50 a thousand as alleged in the complaint? Answer: `Yes.'

"2. If so, did the defendant breach the said contract, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: `Yes.'

"3. What damage, if any, has the plaintiffs sustained by reason thereof? Answer: `$2,825.'"

By consent of plaintiff, the amount of damages was reduced to $2,000 and judgment entered therefor. Defendant appealed. The trial of this cause reduced itself to a controversy over issues of fact, which the jury alone could determine. A careful perusal of the record convinces us that the case has been tried substantially in accordance with the law bearing on the subject, and we have discovered no ruling or action on the part of the trial court which would seem to require another hearing. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 S.E. 926, 186 N.C. 777, 1923 N.C. LEXIS 355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/surratt-v-kluttz-nc-1923.