Case Name: F. RAY CASHATT v. JESSIE B. HACKETT and J. F. HACKETT, JR.
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1972-09-20
Citations: 16 N.C. App. 191
Docket Number: No. 7218DC235
Parties: F. RAY CASHATT v. JESSIE B. HACKETT and J. F. HACKETT, JR.
Judges: Judges Morris and Graham concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 16
Pages: 191–192

Head Matter:
F. RAY CASHATT v. JESSIE B. HACKETT and J. F. HACKETT, JR.
No. 7218DC235
(Filed 20 September 1972)
Appeal by defendant Jessie B. Hackett from Haworth, District Judge, 25 October 1971 Session of Guilford District Court.
In August 1969, Jessie B. Hackett executed an instrument of conveyance to plaintiff, F. Ray Cashatt, wherein she sold all the marketable timber on certain described tracts of land owned by her. The contract provided that the timber so sold must be removed within three years of the date of the instrument. Cashatt paid the full purchase price of $3,500.00. On 20 April 1971, plaintiff instituted this action seeking damages for breach of the contract. Plaintiff has been prevented from going on the property and removing the timber which he purchased by defendant’s son, J. F. Hackett, Jr., who farms and lives on the subject property. Plaintiff alleged that Jessie B. Hackett had knowingly permitted her son to obstruct and prevent plaintiff from removing the timber and that the son’s actions were with her consent.
The jury found, on issues submitted, that plaintiff and defendant Jessie B. Hackett entered into a contract for the sale of the timber as alleged in the complaint; that Jessie B. Hackett knowingly and wrongfully allowed J. F. Hackett, Jr., to obstruct the plaintiff from cutting the timber and that defendant Jessie B. Hackett was indebted to the plaintiff in the amount of $3,500.00.
Frazier, Frazier & Mahler by C. Clifford Frazier, Jr., and David F. Meschan for plaintiff appellee.
Hoyle, Hoyle & Boone by John R. Barlow II and John T. Weigel, Jr., for defendant appellant.

Opinion:
VAUGHN, Judge.
After having carefully considered the assignments of error brought forward, we are of the opinion that substantial justice was rendered in the trial from which defendant appealed.
No error.
Judges Morris and Graham concur.