{
  "id": 8657774,
  "name": "WEST-END HOTEL AND LAND COMPANY v. T. B. CRAWFORD",
  "name_abbreviation": "West-End Hotel & Land Co. v. Crawford",
  "decision_date": "1897-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "347",
  "last_page": "348",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "120 N.C. 347"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "88 N. C., 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8682781
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/88/0141-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 N. C., 5",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683669
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/81/0005-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 181,
    "char_count": 2155,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.473,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1496828645007287e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5810948823657287
    },
    "sha256": "738deb03b9151bb7328c1a85cb7be1718f31c301898a9af04a161af851fb9e50",
    "simhash": "1:24d1ee7b798093cb",
    "word_count": 382
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:07:11.774475+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "WEST-END HOTEL AND LAND COMPANY v. T. B. CRAWFORD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Faieoloth, 0 J.:\nPlaintiff sold Lot 200 at auction to defendant, who was to pay a part cash and give notes for balance. No cash was ever paid, but notes were given for the whole amount. No bond for title was given, as no cash was paid. Plaintiff now tenders deed and demands judgment. These facts are admitted, and the defence set up is that subsequently the plaintiff\u2019s agent agreed to rescind and cancel the contract of sale. This is denied by plaintiff, and the evidence was conflicting. But assuming defendant\u2019s evidence to be true, it does not appear, nor was any evidence offered to that effect, that the agent had authority to rescind the contract. The authority of an agent to sell land does not per se confer authority to cancel the trade without the principal\u2019s knowledge or notice, and the burden of showing the agent\u2019s authority to rescind rested on the defendant in this case, which was not done. It is the duty of one dealing with an agent of limited powers \u201cto lookout for the power\u201d and its extent in contracting for the principal. Earp v. Richardson, 81 N. C., 5; Biggs v. Ins. Co., 88 N. C., 141. The Statute of Frauds is not pleaded, and we have no question on that matter.\nThe defendant offered to prove, by his own oath, what Woods had told him about the lot. This was hearsay, and therefore incompetent.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Faieoloth, 0 J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Watson d\u00e9 Buxton, for plaintiff.",
      "Messrs. Glenn d\u00e9 Manly, for defendant (appellant)."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "WEST-END HOTEL AND LAND COMPANY v. T. B. CRAWFORD.\nPrincipal and Agent \u2014 Sale of Land by Agent \u2014 Authority to Rescind Sale.\n1. It is the duty of one dealing with an agent of limited powers \u201c to look out for the power \u201d and its extent in contracting for the principal.\n2. The authority of an agent to sell land does not, per se, confer authority to cancel the trade without the principal\u2019s knowledge or consent and the burden of proving the agent\u2019s authority to rescind is on the one relying upon it.\nCivil aotioN, for the purchase price of land, tried before Brown, J., and a jury, at December, 1895, Special Term of Fobsyth Superior Court. There was a verdict, followed by judgment, for the plaintiff and defendant appealed .\nMessrs. Watson d\u00e9 Buxton, for plaintiff.\nMessrs. Glenn d\u00e9 Manly, for defendant (appellant)."
  },
  "file_name": "0347-01",
  "first_page_order": 375,
  "last_page_order": 376
}