Case law

McDowell v. . White

68 N.C. 65 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1873

The case relied upon before us to establish the power of sale is, Foster v. Craig, 2 Dev. & Bat. Eq. 209 . … In Foster v. Craig , the words of the will are as follows: “ The balance of my property to be applied to the payment of my just debts.

Gentry v. Town of Hot Springs

227 N.C. 665 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 24, 1947

Clodfelter v. State, 86 N. C., 51 , 41 Am. Rep., 440 ; Brown’s Admr. v. Town of Guyandotte, 34 W. Va., 299 , 12 S. E., 707 ; 41 Am. Jur., 896 . See discussion in Hunt v. High Point, 226 N. C., 74 , 36 S. E. (2d), 694 . … See Hoke v. Greyhound Corp., 226 N. C., 332 , 38 S. E. (2d), 105 ; Hobbs v. Washington, supra; Moffitt v. Asheville, supra; Manuel v. Comrs., 98 N. C., 9 , 3 S. E., 829 ; Anno. 46 A. L. R., 111, s. 61, A. L.

D & W, INC. v. City of Charlotte

268 N.C. 577 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 30, 1966

G.S. 18-61; State v. Anderson and State v. Brown, 265 N.C. 548 , 144 S.E. 2d 581 ; State v. Welch, 232 N.C. 77 , 59 S.E. 2d 199 ; State v. Wilson, 227 N.C. 43 , 40 S.E. 2d 449 ; State v. … G.S. 18-1; State v. Anderson and State v. Brown, supra.

State ex rel. Cole v. Sanders

174 N.C. 112 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 26, 1917

Brown, J. The facts are that the relators were elected highway commissioners by the following votes: John T. Cole, 321 votes; W. B. Mas-sengill, 321 votes; S. W. Brown, 318 votes. The defendant John W. … Massengill, who were members of the old board of highway commissioners of said township, the books, records, and all other property of the highway commission.

Hansley v. Tilton

234 N.C. 3 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 7, 1951

. § 20-129(a, e), Thomas v. … v.

Wood v. Duke Land & Improvement Co.

165 N.C. 367 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 15, 1914

Dorsey v. Henderson, supra; Jones v. Henderson, supra; Meade v. Portland, 200 U. S., 148 ; Gosler v. Georgetown, 19 U. S., 593 ; Galt v. Chicago, 174 Ill., 605 ; Esles v. Owen, 90 Mo., 113 ; McCormack v. … It is urged for plaintiff that his cause comes rather under the decision of Brown v. Electric Co., 138 N. C., 535 ; but we may not concur in this view.

Nebel v. . Nebel

223 N.C. 676 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 15, 1943

Latimer Brown, C. P. A., and plaintiff through her attorneys, W. S. … See also Moore v. Moore , 11 N.C. 358 , 15 Am. Dec., 523 ; Bunker v. Llewellyn , 221 N.C. 1 , 18 S.E.2d 717 . The principle here stated is differentiated from that applied in Godfrey v.

Ragland v. Nash-Rocky Mount Bd. of Educ.

793 S.E.2d 235 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 22, 2016

City of New Bern v. New Bern-Craven County Board of Education

335 N.C. 553 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 10, 1994

Crutchfield v. City of Thomasville

205 N.C. 709 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 10, 1934

Holton v. Mocksville, 189 N. C., 144 ; Brown v. Hillsboro, 185 N. … This case is distinguishable from Charlotte v. Brown, 165 N. C., 435 , Flowers v. Charlotte, 195 N. C., 599 .

City of Charlotte v. American Trust Co.

159 N.C. 388 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 28, 1912

S. v. Fort Scott, 99 U. … The act directs the board of aldermen to issue bonds of the city and sell them. The use of the word bond ex vi termini implies that the city is bound. As said by the United States Supreme Court in Davenport v.

Early v. Eley

243 N.C. 695 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 28, 1956

Alexander v. Brown, 236 N.C. 212 , 72 S.E. 2d 522 ; Aldridge v. Ins. Co., 194 N.C. 683 , 140 S.E. 706 . The exercise of the court’s discretion is not subject to review. Smith v. Ins. … Cherry v. Warehouse, 237 N.C. 362 , 75 S.E. 2d 124 ; Supply Co. v. Ice Co., 232 N.C. 684 , 61 S.E. 2d 895 ; Ballard v. Ballard, 230 N.C. 629 , 55 S.E. 2d 316 ; Gibbs v. Russ, 223 N.C. 349 , 26 S.E. 2d 909 ; Brown v.

Gardner v. Board of Trustees of North Carolina Local Governmental Employees' Retirement System

226 N.C. 465 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1946

Gallimore v. Town of Thomasville

191 N.C. 648 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 28, 1926

Holton v. Mockesville, supra; Reed v. Eng. Co., 188 N. C., 39 ; S. v. Kelly, 186 N. C., 365 ; Brown v. Com., 173 N. C., 598 ; Allen’s Reported and Cited Cases, 1926. … Holton v. Mocksville, 189 N. C., 144 ; Brown v. Hillsboro, 185 N. C., 375 .

Somersette v. . Stanaland

202 N.C. 685 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 4, 1932

He testified that the road was then used by the public and had been used for some time; and other witnesses said the road had been accepted by the board of county commissioners. … Wittson v. Dowling, 179 N. 0.* 542; Irwin v. Charlotte, 193 N. C., 109 ; Gault v. Lalo& Waccamaw, 200 N. 0., 593; Wright v. Lahe Waccamaw, ibid., 616.

Gaither Corporation v. Skinner

238 N.C. 254 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 23, 1953

. *256 It may be conceded that plaintiff might have maintained action against Hopkins on bis subcontract with Skinner, as one made for the benefit of the plaintiff (Brown v. … Montgomery v. Blades, 217 N.C. 654 , 9 S.E. 2d 397 . The exact question here presented does not seem to have been heretofore decided by this Court. However, in Board of Education v.

Toomer v. Branch Banking and Trust Company

360 N.C. 78 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 6, 2005

Davis v. . Burnett

49 N.C. 71 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1856

Brown on Actions, 174; Paley on Agency, 210. The employment gave the power. Hilyear v. Hawke, 5 Esp. N. P. cases, 75 ; Hunter v. Jameson, 6 Ire. Pep. 252. … On tbis point our attention was called to the cases of Meadows v. Smith, 12 Ire. 18 ; McCall v. Clayton, Bus. 422. Both those cases differ materially from tbis.

Board of Provincial Elders of the Southern Province of the Moravian Church v. Jones

273 N.C. 174 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 6, 1968

Carroll v. Board of Trade, 259 N.C. 692 , 131 S.E. 2d 483 ; Whaley v. Taxi Company, 252 N.C. 586 , 114 S.E. 2d 254 ; Lewis v. Harris, 238 N.C. 642 , 78 S.E. 2d 715 . That is the only question before us on this appeal. … See: Carroll v. Board of Trade, supra; Conference v. Creech, supra; Ingle v. Stubbins, 240 N.C. 382 , 82 S.E. 2d 388 ; Huskins v. Hospital, supra; McIntosh, North Carolina Practice and Procedure, 2d ed., § 2196; 28 Am.

Allen v. Metcalf

261 N.C. 570 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 8, 1964

Tew v. Runnels, 249 N.C. 1 , 105 S.E. 2d 108 . … Bogen v. Bogen, 220 N.C. 648 , 18 S.E. 2d 162 .