Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1887

Brendle v. . Herren

Brendle v. . Herren
Supreme Court of North Carolina · Decided September 5, 1887 · Smith
4 S.E. 629; 98 N.C. 539 (South Eastern Reporter)

Brendle v. . Herren

Opinion of the Court

Smith, C. J.,

(after stating the case). No specific errors are pointed out, and we are at a loss to know of what the appellant complains. The judgment, perhaps unnecessary to be reviewed in terms, is in strict conformity to that previously rendered, and which, on account of differences between them as to the form of the deed required, remains unperformed. We have not that prepared by the plaintiff *541 before us, and cannot pass upon its sufficiency. But in examining the other, we think its provisions conform in substance to the requirements of the order, and should be accepted by the plaintiff, and the judgment should be so modified as to declare its sufficiency and require the unconditional payment of the money due the defendant in the office.

There is no error in the ruling of which the appellant can complain, and the judgment as modified is affirmed.

Modified and affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.