Case ID: nc_176/html/0690-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Ouriam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

H. D. SLOAN v. COOPER GUANO COMPANY.
    (Filed 9 October, 1918.)
    Instructions — Appellant’s Evidence — Evidence—Questions for Jury — Trials.
    Instructions predicated upon the appellant’s version of the contract sued on, which was for the determination of the jury under conflicting evidence, are properly refused.
    Appeal by Sloan & Company from Calvert, J., at Fall Term, 1918, of SAMPSON.
    These were two actions, originally; the first action being entitled H. D. Sloan v. Cooper Guano Company and ~W. B. Cooper; the second action being entitled Cooper Guano Company v. H. D. Sloan. By consent, the two actions were consolidated and tried together. Upon the trial it was admitted that H. D. Sloan was indebted to Cooper Guano Company in the sum of $697.64, with interest thereon from 11 November, 1916, and that Cooper Guano - Company was the owner of and entitled to the possession of the property described in the affidavit of claim and delivery, filed in the case of Cooper Guano Company v. H. D. Sloan, and that the value of said property at the time of seizure was $1,000. Issues were submitted in conformity with this agreement, and answered by the court, as will appear in the judgment.
    The only questions for the consideration of the court arose upon the complaint in the case of H. D. Sloan v. Cooper Guano Company, and ■the counterclaim set up in the answer of H. D. Sloan in the case of Cooper Guano Company v. H. D. Sloan, alleging that the Cooper company agreed to pay Sloan 50 cents per ton on all fertilizers sold to the members of the Farmers’ Union in Sampson County, which was denied by the Cooper company. Both parties introduced evidence in support of their claims.
    The jury returned a verdict in favor of Sloan, and the Cooper Company appealed from the. judgment rendered thereon.
    
      
      I.. G. Wright and Foivler & Grumpier for plaintiff.
    
    
      Grady & Graham for defendant.
    
   Per Ouriam.

Tbe controversy is qne entirely of fact dependent upon tbe terms of tbe contract, wbicb tbe jury bas resolved against tbe appellant.

Most of tbe exceptions are to tbe refusal to give certain instructions, wbicb were predicated on tbe version of tbe contract given by tbe Cooper company, and could not bave been given, because they required tbe judge, and not tbe jury, to decide tbe fact.

We find no error in tbe trial.

No error.