Gatlin v. R. R

5 Citing cases

  1. Fertilizer Works v. Simpson

    111 S.E. 341 (N.C. 1922)   Cited 2 times

    Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 353. If the purchaser of guano may show a breach of warranty as to its quality by the effect of its use upon his crops ( Carter v. McGill, 168 N.C. 507), why may he not by proper evidence show the relative production of land with and without the fertilizer, or the usual effect under ordinary conditions of delayed planting when fertilizer is used? Evidence as to cultivation and tillage, the crop planted, the time of planting, the quality of the soil, and the condition of the weather and the seasons may, (253) under proper instructions, be considered by the jury. Carter v. McGill, supra; Tomlinson v. Morgan, 166 N.C. 560; Herring v. Armwood, 130 N.C. 177; Spencer v. Hamilton, 113 N.C. 49; Neal v. Hardware Co., 122 N.C. 105; Gatlin v. R. R., 179 N.C. 435. In material respects, Ober v. Katzenstein, 160 N.C. 440, is distinguishable from the case under consideration; but in that case it is said that when the vendor knows that the fertilizer is for the purchaser's crops, and fails to deliver it, and the purchaser, because of the lateness of the season, is unable to purchase it elsewhere, he is entitled to damages.

  2. Pendergraph v. Express Co.

    100 S.E. 525 (N.C. 1919)   Cited 12 times

    No error. Cited: Gatlin v. R. R., 179 N.C. 435; Harrill v. R. R., 181 N.C. 316; Iron Works v. Cotton Oil Co., 192 N.C. 445; Troition v. Goodman, 225 N.C. 413; Casey v. Grantham, 239 N.C. 128. (348)

  3. Carter v. McGill

    171 N.C. 775 (N.C. 1916)   Cited 12 times

    Petition dismissed. Cited: Fertilizer Works v. Aiken, 175 N.C. 401 (c); Gatlin v. R. R., 179 N.C. 435 (c); Fertilizing Co. v. Thomas, 181 N.C. 280, 281 (c); Fertilizer Works v. Simpson, 183 N.C. 253 (c); Pearsall v. Eakins, 184 N.C. 294 (c); Gulley v. Raynor, 185 N.C. 98 (d); Swift Co. v. Aydlett, 192 N.C. 338, 343 (c). (777)

  4. Carter v. McGill

    84 S.E. 802 (N.C. 1915)   Cited 13 times
    In Carter v. McGill, 168 N.C. 507, it is said: "A cause of action or defense should not be tried upon the issue as to damages, merely, where objection is made, but a separate issue should be submitted, and the issue as to damages left to embrace that subject alone."

    New trial. Cited: Carter v. McGill, 171 N.C. 775; Gatlin v. R. R., 179 N.C. 435; Fertilizing Co. v. Thomas, 181 N.C. 280; Fertilizer Works v. Simpson, 183 N.C. 252; Pearsall v. Eakins, 184 N.C. 294; Gulley v. Raynor, 185 N.C. 98; Brown v. Ruffin, 189 N.C. 266; Swift v. Etheridge, 190 N.C. 168; Swift Co. v. Aydlett, 192 N.C. 338; Gaskins v. Mitchell, 194 N.C. 276.

  5. Guano Co. v. Live Stock Co.

    84 S.E. 774 (N.C. 1915)   Cited 33 times
    In Guano Co. v. Livestock Co., 168 N.C. 442 L.R.A. 19015 D, Justice Walker, writing the opinion for this Court, says: "We are of the opinion that notwithstanding the stipulation as to nonliability for results, evidence of the effect of any particular fertilizer upon crops is competent, under certain conditions, to prove that it did not contain the guaranteed ingredients, or in the proportions specified on the label put on the bag.

    New trial. Cited: Bland v. Harvester Co., 169 N.C. 419; Winn v. Finch, 171 N.C. 276; Carter v. McGill, 171 N.C. 775; Hollingsworth v. Supreme Council, 175 N.C. 636; Murray Co. v. Broadway, 176 N.C. 151; Gatlin v. R. R., 179 N.C. 435; Fertilizer Co. v. Thomas, 181 N.C. 280; Sprout v. Ward, 181 N.C. 375; Fay v. Crowell, 182 N.C. 534; White v. Fisheries Co., 183 N.C. 231; Brewington v. Laughran, 183 N.C. 565; Colt v. Springle, 190 N.C. 230; Swift Co. v. Aydlett, 192 N.C. 338; Hyman v. Broughton, 197 N.C. 3; Frick Co. v. Shelton, 197 N.C. 297.