Wright v. . Shepard

100 S.E. 587, 178 N.C. 656, 1919 N.C. LEXIS 526
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 22, 1919
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 100 S.E. 587 (Wright v. . Shepard) 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
Wright v. . Shepard, 100 S.E. 587, 178 N.C. 656, 1919 N.C. LEXIS 526 (N.C. 1919).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The controversy was one of fact, the plaintiff contending that he was employed by the defendant to sell his lot; that he procured a purchaser to whom the defendant afterwards sold, and the defendant that the plaintiff could not procure a purchaser at the price he was authorized to sell; that he withdrew the lot from the plaintiff, and then sold it; and it has been submitted to the jury under proper instructions, whióh not only required the defendant to show that he gave notice to the plaintiff that the lot was withdrawn, but also that this was done in good faith.

No error.

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

Related

Olive v. . Kearsley
111 S.E. 171 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 S.E. 587, 178 N.C. 656, 1919 N.C. LEXIS 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-shepard-nc-1919.