{
  "id": 8628767,
  "name": "CURT TEICH & CO. v. L. C. LeCOMPTE-ASHEVILLE POST CARD CO.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Curt Teich & Co. v. L. C. LeCompte-Asheville Post Card Co.",
  "decision_date": "1942-09-30",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "94",
  "last_page": "95",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "222 N.C. 94"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 280,
    "char_count": 3940,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.486,
    "sha256": "e4332d033bd97f9c44e1986308119d26f502dd368185d8c6b5bf05e6e5ad5d97",
    "simhash": "1:46493f8daa394bf9",
    "word_count": 643
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:48:14.759571+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CURT TEICH & CO. v. L. C. LeCOMPTE\u2014ASHEVILLE POST CARD CO."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nTbe ease turns on tbe sufficiency of tbe record to support an award of damages on defendant\u2019s counterclaim.\nIt is in evidence tbat on 12 February, 1937, tbe plaintiff, by letter, agreed to refer to tbe defendant for handling all orders or inquiries for Cotton Picking, Southern and Dixieland scenes received by it from tbe states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and tbe eastern part of Tennessee. \u201cThis agreement to be in effect to and including December 31st, 1937.\u201d On 5 January, 1939, tbe defendant addressed a letter to Mr. Curt Teicb, Sr., of tbe plaintiff firm in which be said: \u201cYour firm sent us a contract, and it is true, it was made out for only one year, 1937. However, we expected it to continue right along, or at least until our stock was reduced considerably. At present we have an inventory of your Dixieland cards and folders amounting to around $4500, so we need this protection now as much, or even more than we did in 1937.\u201d In reply, tbe plaintiff called attention to tbe fact tbat \u201cour letter of February 12, 1937, stated plainly tbat tbe agreement we made was to be in effect to and including December 31st, 1937\u201d; and tbat few orders bad been received during 1938 \u2014 in fact, not enough to take tbe trouble to find out by going over tbe ledgers.\nIt is tbe contention of tbe defendant tbat tbe \u201ccourse of dealing\u201d thereafter constituted a revival of tbe contract, and tbat tbe matter was properly submitted to tbe jury. Tbe plaintiff contends otherwise and demurs.\nYe are constrained to bold tbat tbe record fails to show a breach of exclusive agency, or contract for exclusive Southern territory, in tbe sale of plaintiff\u2019s publications. Hence, tbe verdict and judgment in respect of tbe defendant\u2019s counterclaim will be stricken out, and judgment entered for plaintiff on tbe issue answered by consent. It is so ordered.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Zeb F. Curtis and Lipscomb & Lipscomb for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Harkins, Van Winkle & Walton for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CURT TEICH & CO. v. L. C. LeCOMPTE\u2014ASHEVILLE POST CARD CO.\n(Filed 30 September, 1942.)\nEvidence \u00a7 10: Contracts \u00a7 23\u2014\nIn an action to recover for merchandise sold and delivered, plaintiff\u2019s claim was admitted, and judgment accordingly. On defendant\u2019s counterclaim for breach of exclusive agency contract, an issue was submitted to the jury on evidence that exclusive agency agreement was for one year only and so acknowledged by plaintiff, and damages claimed after one year awarded. Held: Record shows no breach of agency contract and judgment on counterclaim reversed.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Blaclcstock, Special Judge, at March-April Term, 1942, of Buncombe.\nCivil action to recover for merchandise sold and delivered.\nCurt Teich & Company, Inc., of Chicago, Ill., a manufacturer and publisher of post cards, etc., brings this action to recover of defendant the sum of $2,836.09, balance due for post cards and souvenir folders\u2014 Cotton Picking, Southern and Dixieland scenes \u2014 shipped to L. O. LeCompte; a jobber in the city of Asheville, N. C., trading under the name of Asheville Post Card Company.\nThe defendant denied liability and set up a counterclaim for alleged breach of exclusive agency, or contract for exclusive southern territory, in the sale of plaintiff\u2019s publications.\nThere was a reference under the Code, and the case tried before a jury on exceptions to the referee\u2019s report.\nOn the hearing, the amount of plaintiff\u2019s claim was admitted, and the issue of indebtedness for merchandise sold and delivered was accordingly answered by consent.\nOver objection, the issue of damages raised by the pleadings on defendant\u2019s counterclaim was submitted to the jury and answered in the exact amount of plaintiff\u2019s claim, i.e., $2,836.09. Exception.\nProm judgments \u201coff-setting and liquidating each other,\u201d and taxing the costs \u201cequally against the plaintiff and defendant,\u201d the plaintiff appeals, assigning errors.\nZeb F. Curtis and Lipscomb & Lipscomb for plaintiff, appellant.\nHarkins, Van Winkle & Walton for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0094-01",
  "first_page_order": 138,
  "last_page_order": 139
}