The view of this case, taken in the first calculation of the master’s report, is supported by the evidence in the cause, and corresponds to the contract of the parties. Therefore dissolve the injunction with costs.
Boyd v. Carson, 10 N.C. 626, 3 Hawks 626 (1825)
June 1825
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
10 N.C. 626, 3 Hawks 626
Boyd and others v. Carson.
IN EQUITY.
I From Mecklenburg. J
The bill stated that the complainants had agreed to purchase a store of goods belonging to the defendant, and that the contract between the parties was, that defendant should make a correct inventory of the goods with their then value agreeably to his then selling price, from which defendant was to deduct 45 per cent, and the sum remaining was the price which complainants were to pay: the hill then stated, that the amount of the goods was $4351 68, and that a deduction of 45 per cent, would leave $ 2394 13, but that, owing to some error in calculation, complainants gave to defendant a bond for g 3046 18; that they afterwards discovered their error on an inspection of the calculation of Carson, that Carson refused to correct it, and had sued them on the bond, and they prayed an injunction, &c.
The defendant answered, that the contract was, thathe would sell his store of goods to complainants at costs and charges, and in order to ascertain the costs and. charges, it was agreed that an invoice should be taken at the retail prices, from which was to be deducted 50 per cent, the advance put upon them by defendant, or in other words, the retail prices: that then to the sum so remaining, after taking off the advance, was to be added five per cent, to cover costs and charges: that according to the calculation made as agreed on, the sum due was 83Q46 18, for which complainants gave their bond, on which they have since made large payments; that at the time of giving it, they pretended that the calculation was erroneous, but on having it explained to them they acknowledged its correctness.
*627Defendant further answering, admitted that in the agreement 50 per cent, was spoken of as the deduction to be made, but that was the 50 per cent, added to the invoice price, which in fact was a discount of 33 J per cent.
The matter of account was referred to the clerk and master of this Court, who reported, that according to the contract, the goods were to be estimated at the retail prices, in other words at an advance of 50 per cent, that a discount of 45 per cent, was then to be made, leaving thereby five per cent, on prime cost to cover costs and charges. The result would be as follows:
Amount according to retail prices, $4351 68
Deducting the advance, 50 per cent, say J, 1450 56
Prime cost, Add five per cent.
2901 12 145 05
Leaves the sum of $ 3046 IT
If it is to be understood that $ 45 in eaeh hundred of the amount of the retail prices is to be deducted, then the result is as follows:
Amount of retail prices, $ 4351 68
Deduct $ 45 from each hundred, 1958 24
Leaving $ 2393 44
By this calculation (if 50 per cent, was the advance) the defendant, instead of getting five per cent, for costs and charges, does not get the prime cost of the goods.