History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. . Corbett
46 N.C. 264
N.C.
1854
Check Treatment

We will not decide whether the matter charged in the indictment constitutes an indictable offence, as the question is not presented by the facts stated in the special verdict; and a decision of that point is consequently not called for.

There is a fatal variance between the allegations of the indictment and the proof. An executed contract is alleged; whereas, the proof shows only an executory contract: And the fact is, that before the contract was executed, the fraudulent mixing in of dirt, c., was discovered, which caused an abandonment of the original executory contract, and a new contract was then made and acted upon, in which there was no fraud; for the presence of dirt was then known and admitted, and an allowance was made to cover it.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. . Corbett
Court Name: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Date Published: Jun 5, 1854
Citation: 46 N.C. 264
Court Abbreviation: N.C.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.