Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

178 N.C. 46

100 S.E 173

Richardson v. . Woodruff

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 17, 1919

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1919-09-17

ActiON tried before Devin, J., and a jury, at March Term, 1919, of Pasquotank. The action is to recover damages for failure to deliver 100 barrels of seed potatoes, pursuant to a contract of defendant with plaintiff, J. W. Eichardson, and in wbieb coplaintiff had acquired an interest pending negotiations. The amount of $5 per barrel had been paid by plaintiff making order, on “deposit,” to be applied towards the purchase money, pursuant to the terms of the agreement.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently July 1934

2 state decisions

Relies on Tillinghast v. Cotton Mills. · Hosiery Co. v. Cotton Mills. · Coal Co. v. . Ice Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1919-09-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Plaintiff excepted and appealed from a ruling of the court restricting the amount of damages to the $500 advanced as a deposit. The plaintiff having, as established by the verdict, rightfully exercised his privilege of rejecting the potatoes because not in compliance with the specifications, the title to the goods remained in the defendants, plaintiffs are assuredly entitled to recover the $500 paid on deposit, and, as now advised, we see no reason why, in addition to this amount, they should not be allowed to recover the difference between the contract and market price at the time and place of delivery, as provided in the executory contract, f. o. b. New York, 1 August, 1917, this being the rule ordinarily applicable in such cases and illustrated and applied in numerous decisions of this Court on the subject. Flour Mills v. Distributing Co.,171 N.C. 708; Tillinghast v. Cotton Mills, 143 N.C. 268; Hosiery Co. v.Cotton, Mills, 140 N.C. 454; Coal Co. v. Ice Co., 134 N.C. 574.

¶2For the error indicated and on plaintiff's appeal there will be a new trial on the issues as to damages, and it is so ordered.

¶3Partial new trial.

¶4Cited: York v. Jeffreys, 182 N.C. 458; Jeannette v. Hovey, 184 N.C. 143;Paint Lead Works v. Spruill, 186 N.C. 70; Early v. Flour Mills,187 N.C. 346; Davis v. Gulley, 188 N.C. 82; Welles Co. v. Satterfield,190 N.C. 94; McGraw v. R. R., 206 N.C. 880.

/178/nc/46 · .json · Public domain