"We have examined tbe thirteen assignments of error directed to tbe evidence and charge of the court, and think they present no substantial ground for granting a new trial.
No error.
Simmons v. Adams Grain & Provision Co., 174 N.C. 787 (1917)
Sept. 19, 1917
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
174 N.C. 787
J. L. SIMMONS v. ADAMS GRAIN AND PROVISION COMPANY.
(Filed 19 September, 1917.)
Appeal and Error — Vendor and Purchaser — Substantial Error.
No substantial ground for a new trial is found upon examination of the appellant’s assignments of error.
Civil actioN, tried before Daniels, J., at February Term, 1917, of Beaufort, upon these issues:
1. Is the defendant indebted to the plaintiff on account of the shipments of corn on IS February, 1915, and of peas on 2 March, 1915, as alleged in the first cause of action in the complaint? If so, in what amount? Answer: $642.84 and interest from 2 March, 1915.
2. Did the defendant prevent the plaintiff from delivering the 15,000 bushels of corn and 2,372 bushels of peas by wrongfully failing and refusing to honor the draft theretofore drawn by plaintiff, as alleged, for the second cause of action in the complaint ? Answer: Yes.
3. If so, what damages, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer : $161.28.
4. Did plaintiff contract to sell and consign to defendant 5,000 bushels of corn on 23 December, 1914, as alleged in the answer as the first counterclaim? Answer: Yes.
5. If so, was plaintiff prevented from delivering a part of said 5,000 bushels by the wrongful failure of defendant to pay the drafts drawn by plaintiff, as alleged in the reply? Answer: Yes.
6. What damages, if any, is the defendant entitled to recover of plaintiff on the said counterclaim? Answer: Nothing.
7. Did plaintiff contract to sell and deliver to defendant 15,000 bushels of corn at 65 cents, as alleged in the answer as the second cause of action? Answer: Yes.
8. What damages, if any, is defendant entitled to recover of the plaintiff on its second counterclaim for failure of the plaintiff to ship the 15,000 bushels of corn as of 6 January, 1915, referred to in the second issue? Answer: Nothing.
9. What damages, if any, is defendant entitled to recover of the plaintiff on its third counterclaim for failure of plaintiff to ship the 2,372 bushels of peas as of 6 January, 1915, referred to in the second issue? Answer: Nothing.
10. Did plaintiff contract to sell and ship the 15,000 bushels of corn at 68 cents per bushel, 19 January, as alleged for the fourth counterclaim? Answer: No.
11. If so, what damages, if any, is defendant entitled to recover of plaintiff for and on account of his failure to comply with said contract ? Answer: Nothing.
*78812. In wbat amount, if any, is plaintiff indebted to defendant for tbe bags referred to in tbe fifth counterclaim? Answer: $61.28. Bags, if recovered, belong to Simmons.
From tbe judgment rendered, defendant appealed.
Ward & Grimes and H. G. Garter for plaintiff.
Small, MacLean, Bragaw & Rodman for defendant.