Court Opinion

ID: 9812141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:37:21.4555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:20.108378
License: Public Domain

Stacy, C. J.,
concurring in result: The trial court concluded, from the facts found in accordance with the stipulation of the parties, that “the plaintiff is engaged in the business of buying and selling and dealing in what is commonly known as junk within the City of Raleigh.” The conclusion is supported by the finding that the plaintiff regularly deals *648with practically all tbe automobile dealers and tire stations witbin tbe city, “buying quantities of old tires, car frames and cars in a unit, and selling individual items from old cars to garages and mecbanics of tbe city of Raleigh.”
Even if it be conceded that a contrary conclusion is arguable from tbe finding, “sales of individual items from old cars and similar sales are generally bad by inspection and examination of tbe articles by tbe purchasers at tbe plaintiff’s place of business outside tbe city limits,” it does not follow that an erroneous interpretation has been placed upon tbe record. Tbe presumption is otherwise. Jackson v. Bell, 201 N. C., 336, 159 S. E., 926.
This is tbe only question presented by tbe appeal. Tbe judgment results from a permissible understanding of tbe evidence and tbe determinations made thereon. It is not contended that buying witbin tbe city limits or making purchases therein, without more, would require a dealer’s license.
BaiíNhill and WikbobNE, JJ., join in this opinion.