Case law

Johnson v. . Commissioners

192 N.C. 561 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 17, 1926

These bonds have been issued and sold by the board, and the proceeds loaned to the commission, pursuant to the agreement, which is valid, and authorized by statute. Young v. … Edwards v. Goldsboro , 141 N.C. 60 .

State v. . Quick

150 N.C. 820 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 1, 1909

Brown, J. The defendant was tried for murder in the second degree and convicted of manslaughter. … For this position the learned counsel cite Stewart v. Carpet Co., 138 N. C., 60 , and Board of Education v. Makeley, 139 N. C., 31 , and insist that the rule upheld in those cases is applicable here.

McGuinn v. . High Point

219 N.C. 56 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 31, 1941

Wilson v. Comrs. , 193 N.C. 386 , 137 S.E. 151 ; Berrier v. Comrs. , 186 N.C. 564 , 120 S.E. 328 ; United States v. Swift Co. , 286 U.S. 105 ; Annotation, 68 A.L.R., 1180 . … S. v. Barksdale , 181 N.C. 621 , 107 S.E. 505 .

Justice v. Boone Fork Lumber Co.

181 N.C. 390 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 18, 1921

¥e have decided in several cases, and very recently in Brown v. Taylor, 173 N. C., 700 (citing Sondley v. Asheville, 112 N. … This case cannot be distinguished from Brown v.

State v. . Hodges

180 N.C. 751 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 24, 1920

The validity of such statute conferring power on the Board of Agriculture to make regulations within the purview of this section was upheld in S. v. R. R., 141 N. C., 846 , and S. v. Garner, 158 N. … S. v. Hay, 126 N. C., 999 ; Morgan v. Stewart, 144 N. C., 424 , and in other matters, S. v. Beacham, 125 N. C., 652 ; and in many other instances. Shelby v. Power Co., 155 N. C., 196 ; Durham v. Cotton Mills, 141 N.

Satterfield v. . Kindley

144 N.C. 455 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 30, 1907

Browne on Stat. Frauds, sec. 117. … Browne, supra, where the authorities are collected. A court of equity will not allow the vendee to hold the-land and at the same time refuse to pay for it. Champion v. Mooday, 85 Ky., 31 .

Kitchen v. . Wilson

80 N.C. 191 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1879

And in McLean v. … But we do not .admit the proposition itself to be well founded in law, and it isin .direct opposition to the doctrine ■declared in Brown’s Heirs v. Potter’s Heirs, Bush, 461.

Browning v. MAURICE B. LEVIEN & CO., PC

300 N.C. 371 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 3, 1980

267 S.E.2d 673 (1980) 300 N.C. 371 Norman BROWNING, John Hubly, James Thorton, Hilda Reich, Harrold Gobeille, David Weisbert, Harry Shrier, Joseph Shrier, Eugene Bohlander, Howard Guggenheim, Paul Eckelberry, Eugene Kandel … Browne, Joseph Thomas, Robert Hays and Joe Fassett v. MAURICE B. LEVIEN & CO., P. C; Maurice B. Levien; Maurice B. Levien & Co.; and Maurice Levien Associates. Supreme Court of North Carolina. June 3, 1980.

Hamlin v. . Carlson

178 N.C. 431 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 12, 1919

In Board of Education v. Comrs., 150 N. … C., 534 ; Glenn v. Comrs., 139 N. C., 412 ; Barnes v. Comrs., 135 N. C., 27 ; Ewbank v. Turner, 134 N. C., 77 ; Burton v. Furman, 115 N. C., 166 .

Reynolds v. Lloyd Cotton Mills

177 N.C. 412 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 14, 1919

Anderson v. Anderson, 42 Vt., 352 ; Gardner v. Board of Education, 5 Dakota, 259 . It is settled by many well-adjudged cases, especially by the case of Cross v. … Doyle v. Brown, 72 N. C., 393 ; Rackley v. Roberts, 147 N. C., 201 ; McDonald v. Hoffman, 153 N. C., 254 . Jurisdiction is presumed where the contrary does not appear on the record. Bernard v. Brown, 118 N.

State v. . Sawyer

224 N.C. 61 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 1, 1944

S. v. Burke, 73 N. C., 83 ; S. v. Brown, 113 N. C., 645 , 18 S. E., 51 ; S. v. Holt, 192 N. C., 490 , 135 S. E., 324 . Generally the element of force in the offense of robbery may be actual or constructive. … S. v. Burke, supra, S. v. Brown, supra. Moreover, in an indictment for *66 robbery the allegation of ownership of the property taken is sufficient when it negatives the idea that the accused was taking his own property.

State Ex Rel. Dalby v. Hancock

125 N.C. 325 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 28, 1899

Bellamy , 120 N.C. 212 ; Day v. State Prison , 124 N.C. 362 ; Wilson v. Jordan, ibid. , 683; Bryan v. Patrick, ibid. , 651. We think the judgment below is erroneous. … We are therefore of opinion that the plaintiffs, except Fuller, are entitled to discharge the duties of the Board of Education which has been held to be a public office. Barnhill v. Thompson , 122 N.C. 493 . Reversed.

Peebles v. Commissioners of Davie County

82 N.C. 385 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1880

This we think fairly deducible as the true doctrine as to the functions of the county board, from the decisions in this and other states. Moore v. Jones, 76 N. C., 182 ; Swam v. McRae, 80 N. … While in Swain v.

State Ex Rel. Jones v. Jones

80 N.C. 127 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1879

Norfleet v. Staton, 73 N. C., 546 . Under an act of the general assembly (afterwards declared unconstitutional in Cloud v. Wilson, 72 N. … We have decided at the present term, in Buckman v.

American Motors Sales Corp. v. Peters

311 N.C. 311 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 6, 1984

Brown, Franchising: Realities and Remedies 2 (2nd ed. 1978). … Thompson v. Wake County Board of Education, 292 N.C. 406, 410 , 233 S.E. 2d 538, 541 (1977). There was ample evidence presented at the hearing to support the Commissioner’s determination.

Dunn v. City of Charlotte

284 N.C. 542 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 25, 1974

“In reviewing the procedure followed by a municipal governing board in an annexation proceeding the question whether the municipality is then providing services pursuant to the plan of annexation is not before the court. … See State v. Kirby, 276 N.C. 123 , 171 S.E. 2d 416 (1970), and cases cited; Burnsville v. Boone, 231 N.C. 577, 579 , 58 S.E. 2d 351, 353 (1950), and cases there cited; Putnam v.

Oliver v. . Oliver

219 N.C. 299 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 19, 1941

See Brown v. Brown, 213 N. C., 347 , 193 S. … See Moore v. Moore, 130 N. C., 333 , 41 S.

Neal v. Nelson

117 N.C. 393 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 15, 1895

In Brown v. Brown, Justice Natis delivering the opinion of the Court and referring to the authorities cited in Avent v. … Beard v. Ryan, 73 Ala., 37; Catlin v. Deller, 38 Conn., 26 ; Stowher v. Griffin, 20 Ga., 312 ; Paxson v. Bailey, 17 Ga., 600 ; Brown v. King, 5 Metcalf, 173.

Kindley v. Privette

241 N.C. 140 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 24, 1954

Pentuff v. Park, 194 N.C. 146 , 138 S.E. 616 ; 33 Am. Jur., Libel and Slander sec. 75; 53 C.J.S., Libel and Slander sec. 39. In Simmons v. … Brown v. Lum ber Co., 167 N.C. 11 , 82 S.E. 961 ; Pentuff v. Brown, supra; Hall v. Hall, 179 N.C. 571 , 103 S.E. 136 ; Paul v. Auction Co., 181 N.C. 1 , 105 S.E. 881 ; Flake v. News Co., supra. And in Flake v.

Leaksville Cotton Mills v. Commissioners of Rockingham County

184 N.C. 227 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 25, 1922

Mclver, was present at the meeting of the board on 5 December, 1921. The building of the-road, in violation of this decision of the board of county commissioners, has been properly arrested. Woolen Mills v. … The chairman of the board, who took Mclver’s view of these matters in the case of Woolen Mills v. Land Co., supra, is now acting in entire accord with the other members of the board in the present controversy.