Case law

State v. . Wilkerson

98 N.C. 696 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1887

, and in the name of the board, and received by the defendant. … Abernathy v. Phifer, 84 N. C., 711 . There is no error, and the judgment must be affirmed. Affirmed.

Alexander v. Commissioners of McDowell

67 N.C. 330 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1872

In Nichols v. … Hill v. the Comms. of Forsythe, and Alexander v. A., T. & O. R. R. Co. 4.

State v. Wilkerson

164 N.C. 431 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 5, 1913

C., 25 ; Ross v. Cotton Mills, ibid., 115; Board of Education v. Makely, 139 N. C., 31 ; Overcash v. Electric Co., 144 N. C., 572 ; Winslow v. Hardwood Co., 147 N. C., 275 . … The case of Commonwealth v. Williams ( 6 Gray, 1 ) supports this view.” In Board of Excise v. Merchant, 103 N.

Davidson v. Davidson's Executors

8 N.C. 163 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1820

Cited: Brown v. Brown , 25 N.C. 136 ; Weatherly v. Armfield , 30 N.C. 26 ; Gibson v. Gibson , 49 N.C. 427 ; Leathers v. Gray , 101 N.C. 164 . (188)

Allen Ex Rel. Allen v. Hunnicutt

230 N.C. 49 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 2, 1949

Kimbrough v. Davis, 16 N.C. 71 ; S. v. Boston, 102 P. 2d 889 (Okla.); Brown v. Brown, 32 S.E. 2d 79 ; Beebe v. Cowley, 156 NE 214 (Ohio); Hoffer v. White, 4 NE 2d 595 (Ohio); S. v. Lindskog, 221 NW 911 (Minn.); Law v. … Kimbrough v. Davis, supra; Burton v. Belvin, 142 N.C. 150 ; Sanders v. Sanders, 167 N.C. 319 , 83 S.E. 490 ; Thayer v. Thayer, 189 N.C. 502 , 127 S.E. 553 , 39 A.L.R. 428 , Anno. p. 434; Bedmon v.

Smith v. South & Western Railroad

151 N.C. 479 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 15, 1909

Upon tbe facts presented, the decision of this Court in Brown v. Louisburg, 126 N. C., 701, approved in Raleigh v. Railroad, 129 N. C., 265 , is decisive. … That they were not tort feasors would seem to be settled in Brown v. Louisburg, supra, in which case this Court said: “The*defendants, howeyer, were not .joint tort feasors.

Swenson v. Thibaut

296 N.C. 740 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 6, 1979

254 S.E.2d 183 (1979) 296 N.C. 740 Norman V. SWENSON, George C. Snyder, Frank O. Sherrill, William L. Pender, John R. Pender, III, Mary Rogers Pender Murphy, Doris Hare White, D. Lacy Keesler, S. … Kimball, Olivia Brown Thomas, Helen Brown Kimball, Nell V. Bates, Rose Dupree, Ann Dupree King, Paul B. Beatty, Robert L. Taylor, Stanley E. Edlund, Patricia A. Edlund, Sharon S. Standifer, Virginia T.

Burton v. Belvin

142 N.C. 151 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 25, 1906

Brown v. Kinsey, 81 N. C., 245 ; and cases there cited. … Brown v. Kinsey, supra, is exactly in point. Corbett v. Clute, 137 N. C., 546 , which holds that a bond given as consideration for the suppression of a criminal prosecution is null and void, has no application.

State Ex Rel. Blount v. Spencer

114 N.C. 770 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1894

(after stating the facts): The entry made by the defendant covered a natural oyster bed, according to the definition given by this Court in State v. Willis, 104 N. … It was further provided that persons dissatisfied with the action of the Board might file a protest with the Board, have a hearing after notice to all parties in interest, and that after such hearing the decision of the Board

Lewis v. John L. Roper Lumber Co.

109 N.C. 19 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1891

Campbell v. McArthur, 2 Hawks, 33 ; Hardin v. Barrett, 6 Jones, 159 ; Brown v. Brown, 106 N. C., 451 . … Edwards v. Cobb, 95 N. C., 4 ; Evans v. Etheridge, 99 N. C., 43, and cases there cited. There were other exoeptions presented in the case on appeal, but we deem it unnecessary to consider them.

O'berry, State Treasurer v. . Mecklenburg County

198 N.C. 357 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 19, 1930

V, sec. 5. … Askren v. Continental Oil Co. , 252 U.S. 444 ; Bowman v. Continental Oil Co. , 256 U.S. 642 ; Texas Co. v. Brown , 258 U.S. 466 ; Chicago Motor Club v. Kinney , 160 N.E. 163 ; City of Portland v.

Bryan v. . Jeffreys

104 N.C. 242 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1889

The refusal of the Court to give the instruction- is fully sustained by the case of Stevens v. Brown, 82 N. … Stephen v. Brown, supra. 2. “That the submission being under seal, the selection of the umpire must be under the seal of the arbitrators.”

Bright Belt Warehouse Ass'n v. Tobacco Planters Warehouse, Inc.

231 N.C. 142 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 23, 1949

enforcement of rules and regulations which are not unreasonable, immoral, unlawful, or contrary to public policy, affords ground for judicial action and relief by injunction. 4 A.J. 459, 460; 7 C.J.S. 34; Booker & Kinnaird v. … Louisville Board of Fire Underwriters, 188 Ky. 771 , 21 A.L.R. 531 . In Gray v.

Corey v. . Fowle

161 N.C. 187 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 20, 1912

Brown, and recorded 20 May, 1895. The plaintiffs claim through mesne conveyances under this deed. … BRown, J., did not sit on the hearing of this appeal.

ST. JOHN CHRISTIAN HOLINESS CHURCH OF GOD v. Hines

362 N.C. 475 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 26, 2008

In Re the Appeal of Hasting

252 N.C. 327 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 6, 1960

Petitioner appealed to the Board of Adjustment. It heard the evidence offered and found: “4. … Hence it is that the findings of the board, when made in good faith and supported by evidence, are final. Little v. Raleigh, 195 N. C. 793 . Such findings of fact are not subject to review by the courts.”

Hicks v. . Beam

112 N.C. 642 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1893

Brown’s Domestic Rel., p. 106; *644 10 Am. and Eng. Enc., 637. … Hawkins v. Hughes, 87 N. C., 115 ; Blackwell v. Dibbrell, 103 N. C., 270 ; Montague v. Brown, 104 N. C., 161 ; Harrison v. Hoff, 102 N. C., 126 ; Pom. R. and R., sec. 721.

State, by the At. Gen'l, Hargrove, Lee v. . Dunn

73 N.C. 595 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1875

We have decided at this term, in Van Bokleden v. *603 Ganaclaij, that it is not within the power of the Legislature to enlarge or abridge the qualifications of voters; and the same is evidently true as to officers. … Either aspect is fatal to the relator, and fully justifies the Board.

Mauldin v. McAden

234 N.C. 501 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 21, 1951

This view is supported by the decision of this Court in Feezor v. … In Waldrop v.

Jamerson v. . Logan

228 N.C. 540 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 3, 1948

Browning v. Berry, supra. Thirdly, it was held in Grantham v. … Gulley v. Macy, 84 N. C., 434 ; Morrison v. Baker, supra; Bonham v. Craig, 80 N. C., 224 ; Barnes v. Brown, 71 N. C., 507 ; S. c., 69 N. C., 439 ; Allen v. Chambers, 39 N. C., 125 . See Note, 49 L. R. A. (N.