Vinson, Jones & Finch, Inc. v. Pugh

90 S.E. 122, 172 N.C. 843, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 420
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 11, 1916
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 90 S.E. 122 (Vinson, Jones & Finch, Inc. v. Pugh) 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
Vinson, Jones & Finch, Inc. v. Pugh, 90 S.E. 122, 172 N.C. 843, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 420 (N.C. 1916).

Opinion

Per CueiaM.

The allegations of the complaint are so- very voluminous, and the liability of defendant "Wooten depends so much upon his good faith in the discharge of the duty he assumed, that it is difficult to determine it without findings of facts. The complaint alleges and the demurrer admits that Wooten received a part of the purchase money and afterwards refused to deliver the deed, and “the defendant J. Frank Wooten unlawfully, and with the purpose and intent to hinder, delay, and defeat the plaintiff in its lawful recovery in this action, took said deed, draft, and statement, and with the advice and suggestion of his codefendant,. J ames H. Pugh, burned the same to prevent the plaintiff and the court from examining and using the same in the trial of this action.”

We think his Honor properly overruled the demurrer, and required the defendant to answer.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Security Trust & Savings Bank v. Carlsen
271 P. 100 (California Supreme Court, 1928)
Vinson v. . Pugh
94 S.E. 1054 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
Vinson, Jones & Finch, Inc. v. Pugh
174 N.C. 778 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 S.E. 122, 172 N.C. 843, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vinson-jones-finch-inc-v-pugh-nc-1916.