Case ID: nc_244/html/0626-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

E. McLAMB, Trading as McLAMB MONUMENT COMPANY, v. R. J. DAWSON.
    (Filed 17 October, 1956.)
    Appeal by defendant from Bone, J., March, 1966, Term, Wayne Superior Court.
    On 10 September, 1954, the parties signed a written instrument under the terms of which the plaintiff agreed to manufacture and erect a specifically described monument at the tomb of the defendant’s wife in Westview Cemetery, Kinston, North Carolina. The price agreed upon was $1,200. After the execution of the paper writing, according to plaintiff’s allegations and evidence, a slight modification in design was agreed upon and made a part of the contract. The contract contained the following: “No verbal agreement allowed to vary the terms of conditions of this contract and this order is not subject to cancellation unless expressly stated herein.” According to the plaintiff’s allegations and evidence the marble for the monument was procured and the work completed with the exception of the inscription when, on 3 December, 1954, the defendant “asked” the plaintiff to cancel the contract and-forbade the erection of the monument. The plaintiff asked for judgment of $1,200, the price of the monument.
    The defendant admitted signing an order but denied it was a contract to purchase a monument and alleged and offered evidence tending to show that verbal conditions were attached to the delivery of the writing to the effect that the plaintiff would ascertain whether a Mr. Dail (with whom defendant had conferred about the purchase of a similar monument) could deliver a monument as desired by the defendant and, if so, the order should be deemed cancelled. The defendant denied any agreement for a change or modification in the design as alleged by the plaintiff. The defendant offered evidence tending to show that the monument the plaintiff offered to deliver was smaller and different from that called for in the order.
    The jury found (1) the parties contracted as alleged, (2) the defendant breached the contract, and (3) the plaintiff was entitled to recover as damages the sum of $750.00. From judgment on the verdict, the defendant appealed.
    
      James N. Smith for plaintiff, appellee.
    
    
      J. Faison Thomson & Son for defendant, appellant.
    
   Per Curiam.

The evidence at the trial was conflicting. The jury accepted the plaintiff’s version. After examination of all the exceptive assignments, we find in the trial below

No error.

Johnson, J., not sitting.