Case law

Rexford v. . Phillips

156 N.C. 213 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 27, 1912

Section 5233 provides that if the owner fails to list at the appointed time, the chairman of the board of commissioners shall list the same, in the name *Page 175 of the owner, by inserting in the tax list the description … Smith , 158 N.C. 263 ; Fields v. Brown , 160 N.C. 299 ; Winn v. Finch , 171 N.C. 276 . *Page 179

Lowery v. School Trustees.

140 N.C. 33 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 22, 1905

Peckham, J., in People v. Terry, 108 N. … Berry v. Haines, 4 N. C., 311 ; Darby v. Wilmington, 76 N. C., 133 ; Cotton Mills v. Waxhaw, 130 N. C., 293 . The difficulty is usually found in the application of the rule.

In Re Appeal of Tadlock

261 N.C. 120 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 17, 1964

Johnson v. Board of Education, 241 N.C. 56 , 84 S.E. 2d 256 ; Jarrell v. *124 Board of Adjustment, 258 N.C. 476 , 128 S.E. 2d 879 . … In Commissioners v.

Masters v. . Gardner

50 N.C. 298 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1858

Brown v. Brown, J Jones’ Rep. 126, is decisive of this point. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.

State v. W. O. Sanders.

153 N.C. 624 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 10, 1910

This was held as far back as Brown v. Frazier, 5 N. C., 421 , which was cited and approved in Whitley v. Gaylord, 48 N. … C., 290 , where Pearson, J., says: “If the court may stop the proceeding and direct an action to be brought (which conflicts with Brown v. Frazier, 5 N.

Buchanan v. . Buchanan

99 N.C. 308 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1888

Repos., 544, 157; Sanders v. Hyall, 1 Hawks, 247 ; Beasley v. Whitehurst, 2 Hawks, 437 ; Ross v. Farris, 4 Dev., 376 ; Brown v. Brown, 3 Ired., 134 ; Hollowell v. Kornegay, 7 Ired., 261 ; Gibson v. … . *312 In Brown v.

Martin v. . Comrs. of Wake

208 N.C. 354 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 26, 1935

Bell v. Comrs. , 127 N.C. 85 , 37 S.E. 136 . Speaking of the counties of this State, this Court has said, in Jones v. … In O'Berry, State Treasurer, v.

Quinn Ex Rel. Quinn v. Atlantic & Yadkin Railway Co.

213 N.C. 48 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 2, 1938

The defendant’s demurrer to the evidence or motion for judgment of nonsuit was properly overruled on authority of Brown v. R. R., 208 N. C., 57 , 179 S. E., 25 , and Bagwell v. R. R., 167 N. C., 611 , 83 S. E., 814 . … , J., in Coleman v.

Pack v. . Auman

220 N.C. 704 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 7, 1942

Mills v. Moore, 219 N. C., 25 , 12 S. E. (2d), 661 , and cases there cited. … Henry v. R. R., ante, 277; Austin v. R. R., 197 N. C., 319 .” See, also, Mills v. Moore, supra.

State v. Staten

271 N.C. 600 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 18, 1967

G.S. 15-4.1; G.S. 15-180; G.S. 15-221; S. v. Roux, 263 N.C. 149 , 139 S.E. 2d 189 ; Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 ; 9 L. Ed. 2d 811 , reh. den. 373 U.S. 905 , 10 L. Ed. 2d 200 ; Griffin v. … About that time Jesse Earl Brown and June Lindsey were coming up from McDowell Street. He asked Jesse Earl Brown where' his sister was.

Johnston v. . Johnston

39 N.C. 9 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1845

The point, then, is precisely that decidedyn Norwood v. Branch, 2 No. Ca. Law Repos. 598. As was mentioned by my brother Daniel, in Brown v. Brown, 2 Ired. … Walton v. Walton, 14 Ves. 324. Brown v. Brown, 2 Ired. Eq. 309 . The Legislature intended an inequality between children, when the parent did not himself produce an inequality.

Thomas v. Catawba College

248 N.C. 609 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 30, 1958

Smith v. Lumber Co., 142 N.C. 26 , 54 S.E. 788 ; Currier v. Lumber Co., 150 N.C. 694 , 64 S.E. 763 ; Croom v. Lumber Co., 182 N.C. 217 , 108 S.E. 735 ; Construction Co. v. Wright, 189 N.C. 456 , 127 S.E. 580 ; Hall v. … (later C.J.), in Machine Co. v. Owings, 140 N.C. 503 , 53 S.E. 345 , this statement expresses succinctly the well established rule in this jurisdiction. Surratt v.

Miller v. Miller

273 N.C. 228 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 20, 1968

In Tom Brown Drilling Co. v. Nieman, 418 S.W. 2d 337 (Tex. Civ. App. 1967), and in Brown v. … In the case comment on Brown v. Kendrick, supra, 39 Colo. L.

Raleigh Savings Bank v. Lacy

151 N.C. 3 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 8, 1909

Brown, J. … We think tbe case is fully covered by previous rulings of this Court, in Glenn v. Ray, 126 N. C., 730 ; Brown v. Stewart, 134 N. C., 357 ; Commissioners v. Stafford, 138 N. C., 453 .

State Ex Rel. Gatling v. Boone

98 N.C. 573 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1887

This Court held in Moore v. Jones, 76 N. … This provision was considered in Swain v. McRae, 80 N. C., 111 , but the Court expressly declined to decide that it did or did not confer judicial power, and in Peebles v.

Blevins v. Town of West Jefferson

653 S.E.2d 392 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 12, 2007

State v. Glenn

333 N.C. 296 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 12, 1993

Defense counsel objected to the excusal of juror Brown, referring to Batson v. Kentucky. The trial court asked the prosecutor if he wanted *303 to place the reasons for his challenge on the record. … In State v.

State v. Pallet

283 N.C. 705 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 31, 1973

Shields, 78 N.C. 417 (1878); Hendersonville v. McMinn, 82 N.C. 532 (1880); State v. Edens, 85 N.C. 522, 526 (1881). In State v. … S. v. Jones, 242 N.C. 563 , 89 S.E. 2d 129 ; S. v. Lueders, 214 N.C. 558 , 200 S.E. 22 .”

Kayann Properties, Inc. v. Cox

268 N.C. 14 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 26, 1966

G.S. 46-22; Brown v. Boger, supra; Seawell v. Seawell, supra; Wolfe v. Galloway, 211 N.C. 361 , 190 S.E. 213 . … On this point see Brown v. Boger, supra; Mineral Co. v. Young, supra. The judgment below is Affirmed.

Bost v. . Bost

56 N.C. 484 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1857

Brown v. Brown, 2 Ire. Eq. 309, cited in the argument, upon examination, is found to support this construction.