J. B. Colt Co v. Springle, (No. 157.)

Citation129 S.E. 449
Decision Date07 October 1925
Docket Number(No. 157.)
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
PartiesJ. B. COLT CO. v. SPRINGLE et al.

Appeal from Superior Court, Carteret County; Barnhill, Judge.

Action by the J. B. Colt Company against L. L. Springle and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. New trial.

Action to recover on note for $298.25 executed by defendants for a lighting plant purchased from plaintiff. Judgment for defendants on a jury verdict. Plaintiff appeals. New trial.

The verdict is as follows:

"(1) Was the execution of the note and contract as set out in the complaint procured by false and fraudulent representations, as alleged? Answer: Yes.

"(2) If so, what damage, if any, is the defendant entitled to recover of the plaintiff? Answer: $44.

"(3) Did the plaintiff, at the time of the execution of this contract, warrant the apparatus furnished to be a thoroughly durable, galvanized steel acetylene generator, automatic in action, and of good material and workmanship, as alleged?

"(4) If so, did plaintiff breach said warranty?

"(5) If so, what damage, if any, is the defendant entitled to recover by reason of said breach?"

The defendant pleaded fraud in the execution of the contract and breach of warranty. The judgment was against the plaintiff on the note, and for the damages assessed in the verdict.

G. W. Duncan and J. W. Mason, both of Beaufort, for appellant.

C. R. Wheatley, of Beaufort, for appellees.

VARSER, J. The plaintiffs exceptions contest the admissibility of evidence that plaintiff's agent stated that the lighting plant would last "from 10 to 25 years, that if same went bad company would make all necessary repairs, that generator was made of 5/16 galvanized steel, that thickness of generator was 12/16, and that plaintiff would guarantee same (plant) for 10 years." This evidence was all admitted on the first issue.

The contract, the execution of which was admitted, contained the following provision:

"It being understood that this instrument, upon such acceptance, covers all of the agreements between the purchaser and the company, and that no agent or representative of the company has made any statements, representations, or agreements, verbal or written, modifying or adding to the terms and conditions herein set forth. 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."

And the following warranty:

"It is agreed that in accepting this order the company warrants the apparatus furnished to be a thoroughly durable, galvanized steel acetylene generator, automatic in action, and of good material and workmanship, and that it is on the permitted list of the National Board of Fire...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Am. Laundry Mach. Co v. Skinner, 666.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • June 6, 1945
    ...34 S.E.2d 190225 N.C. 285AMERICAN LAUNDRY MACHINERY CO.v.SKINNER.No". 666.Supreme Court of North Carolina.June 6, 1945.[34 S.E.2d 191]    \xC2"...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 ......
  • Roberts-atkinson Co v. Int'l Harvester Co. Of Am. Inc, (No. 104.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • March 3, 1926
    ...as this clearly contradicts the express terms of the contract." See Colt v. Turlington, 113 S. E. 600, 184 N. C. 139; Colt v. Springle, 129 S. E. 449, 190 N. C. 230. The "sale contract and order" (part section 10) has also this provision: "In addition to the goods now ordered, all goods her......
  • Roberts-Atkinson Co. v. International Harvester Co. of America, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • March 3, 1926
    ...days, as this clearly contradicts the express terms of the contract." See Colt v. Turlington, 113 S.E. 600, 184 N.C. 139; Colt v. Springle, 129 S.E. 449, 190 N.C. 230. "sale contract and order" (part section 10) has also this provision: "In addition to the goods now ordered, all goods heret......
  • Elizabeth City Hotel Corp. v. Overman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • September 23, 1931
    ...160 S.E. 289(201 N.C. 337)ELIZABETH CITY HOTEL CORPORATIONv.OVERMAN.No". 12.Supreme Court of North Carolina.Sept. 23, 1931.[160 S.E. 290]    \xC2"...Colt v. Conner, 194 N. C. 344, 139 S. . E. 694; Colt v. Springle, 190 N. C. ......
  • 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