TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Zimmerman v. Lynch.

Zimmerman v. . Lynch

Zimmerman v. Lynch., 40 S.E. 841 (N.C. 1902)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 4, 1902
Judges
Clark
Citations
40 S.E. 841130 N.C. 611902 N.C. LEXIS 15
Headnotes
WARRANTY — Covenants—Vendor and Purchaser. A complaint stating that defendant sold plaintiff certain standing timber, and that title of defendant was defective, with no allegation of covenant or fraud, does not state a cause of action, as there is no implied warranty in the sale of realty.
Summary
ActioN by N. R. Zimmerman against‘W. Lyncb, beard by Judge George II. Brown, 'at September Term, 1901, of the Superior Court of Pasquotank County. From a judgment for the defendant, the plaintiff appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Clark

CLARK, J.

The first cause of action alleges that the defendant sold the plaintiff a certain quantity of standing timber, but defendant’s title proved defective, and plaintiff was prevented from cutting the timber by legal proceedings instituted by the real owner.

The second cause of action is that defendant agreed that plaintiff should put in a tram-road, that the same was built at great expense, which is a loss to the plaintiff since he can not get the timber.

The defendant answered, denying each of the allegations of the complaint, but further moved to dismiss the action for that the complaint did not state a cause of action in that the complaint did not allege that there was any covenant of warranty nor any breach of said warranty, and there is no allegation of fraudulent conduct or\fraudulent and false representation upon the part of the defendant.

*62 The plaintiffs counsel having stated that he could not amend his complaint, the Court properly allowed the motion. The standing timber is of the nature of real estate, and in the sale of realty there is no implied warranty.

Foy v. Haughton, 85 N. C., 168 ;

Huntly v. Waddell, 34 N. C., 32 .

No Error.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1933: 11939: 11945: 11953: 119332026peak 1933 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Walton Land and Timber Co. v. Long185 So. 839 (Fla. 1939)
  2. Queen v. Sisk78 S.E.2d 152 (N.C. 1953)
  3. Turpin v. County of Jackson35 S.E.2d 180 (N.C. 1945)
  4. Guy v. First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank of Columbia171 S.E. 341 (N.C. 1933)

Most recent

  1. Queen v. Sisk78 S.E.2d 152 (N.C. 1953)
  2. Turpin v. County of Jackson35 S.E.2d 180 (N.C. 1945)
  3. Walton Land and Timber Co. v. Long185 So. 839 (Fla. 1939)
  4. Guy v. First Carolinas Joint Stock Land Bank of Columbia171 S.E. 341 (N.C. 1933)

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.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Foy v. Haughton, 85 N.C. 168 (1881) 9
Huntley v. Waddell, 34 N.C. 32 (1851) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list