{
  "id": 8631304,
  "name": "M. FEIGEL & BROTHER, Incorporated, v. CAROLINA WOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "M. Feigel & Brother, Inc. v. Carolina Wood Products Co.",
  "decision_date": "1928-05-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "659",
  "last_page": "660",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 N.C. 659"
    }
  ],
  "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": "18 N. C., 402",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8693529
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/18/0402-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 S. E., 356",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 N. C., 408",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654346
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/189/0408-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 211,
    "char_count": 2745,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.476,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.3004890917364487e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2711634925433877
    },
    "sha256": "7f671737d6edbaf08e919d3c0f36f76de0a0ac3baf614f3d6b60ba0029388a48",
    "simhash": "1:dfe23d3c5c1987a8",
    "word_count": 458
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:22:12.241767+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "M. FEIGEL & BROTHER, Incorporated, v. CAROLINA WOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nIt was earnestly insisted on the argument that no contract had been shown, as the defendant\u2019s order was not to be binding until approved by the plaintiff in New Tork, and no such approval appears from the evidence.\nConceding without deciding that- the evidence is sufficient to establish a binding contract between the parties, as alleged by the plaintiff, still the judgment of nonsuit would seem to be correct unless the shipping instructions of the defendant were so unreasonable as to amount to a breach of the contract, which we cannot hold. They were within the letter of the agreement, and it is the simple law of contract that \u201cas a man consents to bind himself, so shall he be bound.\u201d Elliott on Contracts (Vol. 3), sec. 1891; Nash v. Royster, 189 N. C., 408, 127 S. E., 356; Clancy v. Overman, 18 N. C., 402.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Isadora Shapiro and Harkins & Van Winkle for plaintiff.",
      "Barnard & Heazel for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "M. FEIGEL & BROTHER, Incorporated, v. CAROLINA WOOD PRODUCTS COMPANY.\n(Filed 23 May, 1928.)\nContracts \u2014 Performance or Breach \u2014 Acts Held Not a Breach \u2014 Nonsuit.\nIn a contract for two hundred barrels of shellac, shipments to come forward biweekly, buyer to advise when shipments to commence and number of barrels to be included in each shipment: Held,, an order by the buyer of two barrels of shellac to be shipped every two weeks until further notice is not so unreasonable as to amount to a breach of the contract by the buyer, and the buyer\u2019s motion of nonsuit is properly entered in the seller\u2019s action for breach.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Oglesby, J., at November Term, 1927, of BUNCOMBE.\nCivil action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract.\nPlaintiff declares on a written order dated 21 November, 1925, for 200 barrels of shellac, which order is signed by the defendant and contains, among other things, the following provision:\n\u201cShipments to come forward in biweekly shipments, we (defendant) to advise when shipment to commence and number of barrels to be included in shipment.\u201d\nAfter the exchange of a number of letters, the plaintiff, on 24 May, 1926, wrote the defendant that if shipping instructions were not given, within a reasonable time, it would consider the contract breached and proceed accordingly. In answer, the defendant, on 28 May, instructed the plaintiff that, in accordance with the terms of the order, 2 barrels of pure white shellac might be shipped every two weeks until further notice.\nPlaintiff regarded these instructions so unreasonable as to amount to a breach of the contract; and instituted this suit to recover. damages therefor.\nFrom a judgment of nonsuit entered on motion of defendant at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, plaintiff appeals, assigning error.\nIsadora Shapiro and Harkins & Van Winkle for plaintiff.\nBarnard & Heazel for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0659-01",
  "first_page_order": 731,
  "last_page_order": 732
}