Latham v. Fields

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: Latham v. Fields, 166 N.C. 215, 81 S.E. 410 (N.C. 1914)
• Decision Date: 15 April 1914
• Parties: LATHAM v. FIELDS ET AL.

81 S.E. 410

166 N.C. 215

LATHAM v. FIELDS ET AL.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

April 15, 1914

Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Lane, Judge.

Action by J. E. Latham against J. E. Fields and others. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant Fields appeals. Affirmed.

Thos C. Hoyle, and R. C. Strudwick, both of Greensboro, and T. J Norris, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

King & Kimball and Thos. S. Beall, all of Greensboro, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is the third appeal in this case. 160 N.C. 335, 76 S.E. 251; 163 N.C. 356, 79 S.E. 865. A close examination of the evidence taken at the last trial satisfies us that there was ample proof of the fact that Jno. D. Turner was acting for J. E Fields & Son in selling the cotton to plaintiff, and not for himself, and that the sale was made by J. E. Fields & Son to plaintiff, through J. D. Turner. There was strong oral and documentary evidence of this fact, which was properly left to the jury. That was the main question in controversy. The evidence now before us is substantially the same as that considered by the court in the other appeals, the difference if any, being in favor of plaintiff, appellee. When this is the case, we follow the former decision, which cannot be reviewed by another appeal. Carson v. Insurance Co., 80 S.E. 1080, at this term; Bank v. Furniture Co., 120 N.C. 475, 26 S.E. 927. The case was tried in strict accordance with our...