Cont'l Jewelry Co v. Stan-field

• Decision Date: 22 February 1922
• Docket Number: (No. 66.)
• Citation: 110 S.E. 585
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: CONTINENTAL JEWELRY CO. v. STAN-FIELD et al.

110 S.E. 585

CONTINENTAL JEWELRY CO.

v.STAN-FIELD et al.

(No. 66.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 22, 1922.

Appeal from Superior Court, Edgecombe County; Allen, Judge.

Action by the Continental Jewelry Company against B. F. Stanfleld and B. A. Steadman, trading as Stanfield & Steadman.Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.New trial.

This action began before a justice of the peace to recover $192 and interest for jewelry purchased from the plaintiff.The plaintiff Introduced an Itemized and verifiedstatement of account for $192; the defendants admitted that they bought some jewelry from the plaintiff company, and signed contract for it; that three or four weeks after receiving the jewelry It all turned out to be brass, and not merchantable; that every piece they sold was brought back; that It was of no value, and they returned all of it to the plaintiff company by express after a lapse of probably 90 days.The defendants further testified that the stuff was wholly worthless, and not salable; that the goods were reshipped to the plaintiff, and have never been returned to them.The plaintiff testified that it directed the goods to be shipped back to the defendants, who in turn denied they have received them.

The defendants asked the court to instruct the jury:

(1) That if the goods were not of the kind specified in the contract—that is, that the jewelry was not gold plated, or rolled gold plate, or solid gold—and the jewelry sent was all brass, then the defendants had the right to return the same and are not liable for the goods returned.

(2) That if the jury find by the greater weight of the evidence that the jewelry was not merchantable, but was unsalable and worthless, the defendants had the right to return the same, and are not liable for the goods returned.

(3) That if the jury find by the greater weight of the evidence that the goods were returned by defendants to plaintiff and kept by it, then the defendants are not liable for the goods returned.

These prayers were refused, and the defendants excepted, and the court Instructed the jury, If they believed all of the evidence in the case, as a matter of law, the plaintiff is entitled to recover, and to answer the issue $192 and interest.The jury so responded, and from the judgment entered the defendants appealed.

W. O. Howard, of Tarboro, for appellants.

H. D. Hardison and G. M. T. Fountain both of Tarboro, for appellee.

CLARK, C. J.[1]The plaintiff relies upon the contract which...