Vinson, Jones & Finch, Inc. v. Pugh
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.
Opinion
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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.