Tucker v. Ashcraft Gin & Mill Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Tucker v. Ashcraft Gin & Mill Co.

127 S.E. 531, 189 N.C. 546, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 351

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 22, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 127 S.E. 531 (Tucker v. Ashcraft Gin & Mill Co.) 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

Tucker v. Ashcraft Gin & Mill Co., 127 S.E. 531, 189 N.C. 546, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 351 (N.C. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Adams, J.

There was evidence tending to show that the defendant had contracted to purchase two carloads of lumber from the Green Lumber Company, which at that time was indebted to the defendant in an amount exceeding the contract price-, that the Green Lumber Company had assigned the “accounts” or “orders” to the plaintiff, who had caused the lumber to be shipped, and that the lumber had been received by the defendant. The plaintiff brought suit to recover the amount alleged to be due and a controversy arose as to whether the debt was due the plaintiff or the Green Lumber Company.

At the close of the evidence each party moved for a directed verdict, and thereupon for the purpose of reducing the controversy to a question •of law, facts agreed were submitted to the court. The judge dir'ected a verdict in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted and .appealed.

An inspection of the facts agreed leads us to the conclusion that they .are inconsistent, if not contradictory; that more than one reasonable inference may be deduced from them, and that under these circumstances the directed verdict cannot be upheld. If the parties are unable to agree upon a more definite and specific statement of the facts, the issues should be left to the jury with proper instruction as to the law. In re Will of Margaret Deyton, 177 N. C., 494; Phillips v. Giles, 175 N. C., 409.

For the error assigned a new trial is granted.

New trial.

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

Adams, J.

There was evidence tending to show that the defendant had contracted to purchase two carloads of lumber from the Green Lumber Company, which at that time was indebted to the defendant in an amount exceeding the contract price-, that the Green Lumber Company had assigned the “accounts” or “orders” to the plaintiff, who had caused the lumber to be shipped, and that the lumber had been received by the defendant. The plaintiff brought suit to recover the amount alleged to be due and a controversy arose as to whether the debt was due the plaintiff or the Green Lumber Company.

At the close of the evidence each party moved for a directed verdict, and thereupon for the purpose of reducing the controversy to a question •of law, facts agreed were submitted to the court. The judge dir'ected a verdict in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted and .appealed.

An inspection of the facts agreed leads us to the conclusion that they .are inconsistent, if not contradictory; that more than one reasonable inference may be deduced from them, and that under these circumstances the directed verdict cannot be upheld. If the parties are unable to agree upon a more definite and specific statement of the facts, the issues should be left to the jury with proper instruction as to the law. In re Will of Margaret Deyton, 177 N. C., 494; Phillips v. Giles, 175 N. C., 409.

For the error assigned a new trial is granted.

New trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 S.E. 531, 189 N.C. 546, 1925 N.C. LEXIS 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-ashcraft-gin-mill-co-nc-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack