J. B. Colt Co v. Conner

Decision Date12 October 1927
Docket Number(No. 156.)
Citation139 S.E. 694
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesJ. B. COLT CO. v. CONNER.

Appeal from Superior Court, Craven County; Cranmer, Judge.

Action by the J. B. Colt Company against W. B. Conner. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant upon certain notes aggregating $300, having been executed and delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff in payment of the purchase price of a certain lighting plant and fixtures. The notes were dated June 22, 1923. The contract between the parties was in writing and contained a written warranty, and in addition the following clause:

"It being understood that this instrument contains all of the terms, conditions, and agreements between the purchaser and the company, and that no agent or representative of the com pany has made any statements, representations, or agreements, verbal or written, modifying or adding to the terms and conditions herein set forth. The company does not install the generator or appliances. It is further understood that, upon the acceptance of this order, the contract so made cannot be canceled, altered, or modified by the purchaser or by any agent of the company or in any manner except by agreement in writing between the purchaser and the company acting by one of its officers."

The defendant admitted the execution of the notes, but alleged that:

At the time of the sale, the agent of the plaintiff, "as an inducement to the defendant to purchase the same, represented and stated as of his own knowledge, and as of the knowledge of the plaintiff, that in the operation of said plant a charge of 200 pounds of carbide would operate the machine and cause it to produce the fights for 8 or 9 months."

The defendant further alleged:

"That this representation so made was false in that 200 pounds of carbide would only operate the machine 53 days, and that by reason of such false representation the defendant had been damaged, " etc.

The evidence further disclosed that plaintiff could read and write.

At the conclusion of the evidence, the judge instructed the Jury to answer the issue of indebtedness in favor of the plaintiff.

From the judgment rendered, the defendant appealed.

Ward & Ward, of Newbern, for appellant.

Powers & Elliott, of Kinston, for appellee.

BROGDEN, J. The defendant pleaded fraud as a defense to the notes sued upon. There was no allegation and no evidence that there was fraud in the factum, but that certain oral...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Am. Laundry Mach. Co v. Skinner, 666.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • June 6, 1945
    ......McLain v. Shenandoah Life Ins. Co., 224 N.C. 837, 840, 32 S.E.2d 592; Coppersmith & Sons v. Ins. Co., 222 N.C. 14, 17, 21 S.E.2d 838; Colt Co. v. Conner, 194 N.C. 344, 139 S.E. 694; Colt Co. v. Springle, 190 N.C. 229, 129 S.E. 449; Murray Co. v. Broadway & Langston, 176 N.C. 149, ......
  • Bramham v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF DURHAM, NC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Eastern District of North Carolina
    • November 21, 1934
    ...that no basis is afforded for the reformation of the instrument. Colt Co. v. Kimball, 190 N. C. 169, 129 S. E. 406; Colt Co. v. Conner, 194 N. C. 344, 139 S. E. 694; Newbern v. Newbern, 178 N. C. 3, 100 S. E. 77; Williamson v. Rabon, 177 N. C. 302, 98 S. E. 830. It follows that the question......
  • J. B. Colt Co. v. Conner
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • October 12, 1927
    ...139 S.E. 694 194 N.C. 344 J. B. COLT CO. v. CONNER. No. 156.Supreme Court of North CarolinaOctober 12, Appeal from Superior Court, Craven County; Cranmer, Judge. Action by the J. B. Colt Company against W. R. Conner. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed. In absence of fra......
  • Elizabeth City Hotel Corp. v. Overman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • September 23, 1931
    ......They are, therefore, not sufficient as a foundation for the first defense relied on by the defendant. Colt v. Conner, 194 N. C. 344, 139 S. . E. 694; Colt v. Springle, 190 N. C. 229, 129 S. E. 449; Pritchard v. Dailey, 168 N. C. 330, 84 S. E. 392; ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT