Case law

Brown v. . Broadhurst

197 N.C. 738 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 20, 1929

Jenkins v. Parker, 192 N. C., 188 , 134 S. E., 419 ; Baker v. Edwards, 176 N. C., 229 , 97 S. E., 16 ; Driller Co. v. Worth, 117 N. C., 515 , 23 S. … Power Co. v. Taylor, 194 N. C., 231 , 139 S. E., 381 ; Speas v. Bank, 188 N. C., 524 , 125 S. E., 398 .

Parker v. Brown.

131 N.C. 264 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 11, 1902

C., 214 ; Summerrow v. Baruch, Ibid., 202; People v. Dye, 75 Cal., 108 ; Hubback v. Ross, 96 Cal., 426 ; Bergtholdt v. Porter, 114 Cal., at page 689; and were therefore properly excluded. … To which Brown made no reply. This is relied upon by plaintiffs as some evidence to show agency, but we do not it does. Brown did not consent to do so.

Brown v. . Myers

150 N.C. 441 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 14, 1909

The words “in an east direction” along the road, should have been “west,” as the plaintiff avers and as is evident' (Wiseman v. Green, 127 N. C., 288 ), but that fact has no bearing on the controversy. … Cullen v. Absher, 119 N. C., 441 .

State v. Brown

360 N.C. 538 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 29, 2006

Langston v. Brown

260 N.C. 518 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 20, 1963

Index, Pleadings § 15; Carroll v. Brown, 228 N.C. 636 , 46 S.E. 2d 715 . Neither complaint alleges any such -agreement. … Restatement, Securi *521 ty § 48, Comment a; Bank v. Hessee, 207 N.C. 71 , 175 S.E. 826 ; Sykes v. Everett, 167 N.C. 600, 608 , 83 S.E. 585 . The general rule is succinctly stated in 41 Am.

State v. Brown

636 S.E.2d 813 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 5, 2006

636 S.E.2d 813 (2006) STATE of North Carolina v. Thomas Lloyd BROWN. No. 437P06. Supreme Court of North Carolina. October 5, 2006. Thomas Lloyd Brown, Pro Se. Kathleen U. Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, Kristy M.

Newton v. . Brown

152 N.C. 200 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 23, 1910

BrowN, J., after stating the facts: 1.

Vanderbilt v. Brown.

128 N.C. 498 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1901

In Attorney General v. … Witsell v. R. R. , 120 N.C. 557 ; Bottoms v. R. R. , 109 N.C. 72 .

Alexander v. Brown

239 N.C. 527 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 24, 1954

appeal adjudging the plaintiff’s evidence ample to carry the case to the jury and support a verdict against the defendant Brown upon the cause of action for malicious prosecution. … Mintz v. R. R., 236 N.C. 109 , 72 S.E. 2d 38 . This conclusion necessitates a reversal of the involuntary nonsuit upon the second cause of action. No error upon cause of action for false arrest and imprisonment.

State v. Brown

636 S.E.2d 569 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 23, 2006

Defendant (Paul Brown) shall have up to and including the 11th day of November 2006 to file and his petition for writ of certiorari with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 23rd day of August 2006."

State v. Brown

360 N.C. 484 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 4, 2006

State v. Brown

361 N.C. 169 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 1, 2006

State v. Brown

360 N.C. 538 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 29, 2006

State v. Brown

360 N.C. 484 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 13, 2006

State v. Brown

360 N.C. 484 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 13, 2006

State v. Brown

360 N.C. 484 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 4, 2006

Brown v. Mobley

192 N.C. 470 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1926

V. Brown, southward over the land of defendant, Gr. W. Mobley, to Mill Swamp public road, at or near the dividing corner between the lands of the said Mobley and "W". V. … Brown, on said public road near the Brown schoolhouse.

State v. Brown

360 N.C. 484 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 4, 2006

Brown v. . Osteen

197 N.C. 305 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 12, 1929

In Meadows Co. v. Bryan, 195 N. C., at p. 401, the law is stated as follows: “There is no provision in the notes executed by E. W. … The court has read to you from the case of McNair v. Finance Co., Book 191, at bottom page 718 of the N. C., Report.” May v. Loomis, 140 N. C., at p. 359.

Morisey v. . Brown

144 N.C. 154 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 12, 1907

University v. Borden, 132 N. C., 416 . The appellant, conceding this to be the law, insists that the devise of “all the residue of my lands in Sampson County” is a residuary devise. We do not concur in that view.