M. Feigel & Brother, Inc. v. Carolina Wood Products Co.
M. FEIGEL & BROTHER, Incorporated, v. CAROLINA WOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY
Opinion of the Court
Stacy, C. J.
It was earnestly insisted on the argument that no contract had been shown, as the defendant’s order was not to be binding until approved by the plaintiff in New Tork, and no such approval appears from the evidence.
Conceding without deciding that- the evidence is sufficient to establish a binding contract between the parties, as alleged by the plaintiff, still the judgment of nonsuit would seem to be correct unless the shipping instructions of the defendant were so unreasonable as to amount to a breach of the contract, which we cannot hold. They were within the letter of the agreement, and it is the simple law of contract that “as a man consents to bind himself, so shall he be bound.” Elliott on Contracts (Vol. 3), sec. 1891;
Nash v. Royster, 189 N. C., 408 , 127 S. E., 356 ;
Clancy v. Overman, 18 N. C., 402 .
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.