Wilson v. Standard Fertilizer Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Wilson v. Standard Fertilizer Co.

166 S.E. 76, 203 N.C. 359, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 399

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 19, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 166 S.E. 76 (Wilson v. Standard Fertilizer 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

Wilson v. Standard Fertilizer Co., 166 S.E. 76, 203 N.C. 359, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 399 (N.C. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Adams, J.

The verdict must be interpreted by reference to the testimony of the witnesses and the charge of the court. Balcum, v. Johnson, 177 N. C., 213, 218; Weldon v. R. R., ibid., 179; Jones v. R. R., 176 N. C., 260. Giving it this interpretation we are led to the conclusion that the jury accepted the defendant’s contention that the chattel mortgage never became effective because the plaintiff did not comply with his agreement to make a cash payment of one hundred and fifty dollars — an agreement in parol, not contradicting the written instrument but constituting a condition precedent to its efficacy. For this reason the defendant was not obligated to furnish the fertilizer. If the mortgage did not go into effect the plaintiff could not have been benefited by a finding that its execution had been fraudulently procured. The jury found with the defendant on all the issues; and as the plaintiff admitted the debt of 1930 the court properly gave the defendant a judgment for this amount. We find no error in the trial, but the judgment should be modified by declaring the chattel mortgage of no effect. The contract was entire, not divisible.

Modified and affirmed.

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

Adams, J.

The verdict must be interpreted by reference to the testimony of the witnesses and the charge of the court. Balcum, v. Johnson, 177 N. C., 213, 218; Weldon v. R. R., ibid., 179; Jones v. R. R., 176 N. C., 260. Giving it this interpretation we are led to the conclusion that the jury accepted the defendant’s contention that the chattel mortgage never became effective because the plaintiff did not comply with his agreement to make a cash payment of one hundred and fifty dollars — an agreement in parol, not contradicting the written instrument but constituting a condition precedent to its efficacy. For this reason the defendant was not obligated to furnish the fertilizer. If the mortgage did not go into effect the plaintiff could not have been benefited by a finding that its execution had been fraudulently procured. The jury found with the defendant on all the issues; and as the plaintiff admitted the debt of 1930 the court properly gave the defendant a judgment for this amount. We find no error in the trial, but the judgment should be modified by declaring the chattel mortgage of no effect. The contract was entire, not divisible.

Modified and affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.E. 76, 203 N.C. 359, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-standard-fertilizer-co-nc-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack