Buffkins v. Eason
M. W. Buffkins v. D. Eason and Wife.
Headnotes
Summary
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, J.:
We concur with his Honor that the force and effect of the contract set out was to place the title to the entire crop in the plaintiff, until the amount therein specified was paid, and hence that claim and delivery would lie. The words, “I further agree that the title to the said crop shall be in the said Buff kins until,”, etc., admit of no other construction. They were so construed when the case was here before, 110 N. C., 264 . The case then went back because it did not appear that the execution of the contract of sale was proved. On this trial its execution was admitted by the defendant.
The allegation in the complaint of title to the corn was denied by the' answer. The Court therefore properly held that no demand was necessary and committed no error in withdrawing an issue, previously submitted, as. to whether or not there had been a demand made before action brought.
Vincent v. Corbin, 85 N. C., 108 ;
Waddell v Swann, 91 N. C., 108 ;
Wiley v. Logan, 95 N. C., 358 .
No Error.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.