Case law

Wellborn v. . Finley

52 N.C. 228 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1859

This is a well settled rule of law, and is an instance of that being done, by mere act of law, which the party had before professed to do by a solemn act; Foscue v. Satterwhite, 2 Ired. Rep. 470 ; McNeely v. … This is decided in Doe v. Oliver, reported in 2 Smith’s leading cases, 417, where the authorities are collected.

State v. Bovender

233 N.C. 683 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 7, 1951

Riley King was not permitted to testify how long defendants' witness Brown had been living in their home and how long he had known her husband, but later Brown testified without objection he had been living there since December … Brown v. Vestal, 231 N.C. 56 , 55 S.E.2d 797 ; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Rouse Banking Co., 191 N.C. 500 , 132 S.E. 468 ; State v. Hardy, 189 N.C. 799 , 128 S.E. 152 .

Taylor v. First National Bank of Snow Hill

190 N.C. 175 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 30, 1925

Joyner v. Stancill, 108 N. C., 153 ; Terry v. Robbins, 128 N. C., 140 ; Dawson v. Thigpen, 137 N. C., 462 ; Bank v. Knox, 187 N. C., 565 ; Saleeby v. Brown, ante, 138. In Bank v. Hall, 174 N. … C., 477 , Brown, J., said: “It is well settled that a renewal note is not payment of tbe original indebtedness unless so intended. 7 Cyc., 877; Kidder v. McIlhenny, 81 N. C., 123 ; Hyman v. Deverux, 63 N.

State v. . Whitley

208 N.C. 661 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 1, 1935

The objection is not to the substance of the change (S. v. Brown, 203 N. C., 513 , 166 S. E., 396 ), but to the manner and time of the correction. … Bisanar v. Suttlemyre, 193 N. C., 711 , 138 S. E., 1 . Still this would not work a new trial of the cause, but simply an order of remand to have the correction properly made. S. v. Brown, supra; Summerlin v.

Felmet v. . Commissioners

186 N.C. 251 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 17, 1923

22 of the general act, merely requires a petition of the board of education. … Board of Education v. Bray, 184 N. C., 484 ; Wilson v. Comrs., 183 N. C., 638 ; Comrs. v. Malone, 179 N. C., 110 . Affirmed.

Parsons v. . Wright

223 N.C. 520 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1943

McGrew v. Stewart, 32 Pac., 896 ; Board of Com’rs v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 132 N. W., 675 . This authority extends to alleys as a part of the system of streets. C. S., 2787 (11). … J., 160, sec. 2278; Board of Com’rs v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., supra.

Wilson Lumber & Milling Co. v. Hutton

152 N.C. 537 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 11, 1910

In Brown v. House, 116 N. C., 859 , and s. c., 118 N. … Brown v. House, 116 N. C., 866; Cox v. Cox, 91 N. C., 356 .” The Court further said, quoting from Mayo v. Blount, 23 N.

Ramsey v. Camp

254 N.C. 443 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 12, 1961

Brown v. R.R., 208 N.C. 423 , 181 S.E. 279 ; Holland v. Utilities Co., 208 N.C. 289 , 180 S.E. 592 ; Slade v. Sherrod, supra; Mason v. … Co. v. American Transit Lines, 408 Ill. 336 , 97 N.E. 2d 264 ; Aldridge v. Morris, 337 Ill. App. 369 , 86 N.E. 2d 143 ; Brown v. R.R., supra. In the last cited case the plaintiffs instituted an action against D. B.

Hood v. . Sutton

175 N.C. 98 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 22, 1917

Faison v. Comrs., 171 N. C., 415 . … L., 375; Conner v. Gray, 9 Anno. Cases, 121 and note; R. R. v. Comrs., 109 N. C., 159 . We therefore conclude that there was no error in continuing the re.straining order. Affirmed.

Fletcher v. Collins

218 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 19, 1940

Mears v. Board of Education, 214 N. C., 89 , 197 S. … Hood, Comr., v. Realty, Inc., 211 N. C., 582 , 191 S. E., 410 ; S. v. Brockwell, 209 N. C., 209 , 183 S. E., 378 ; Glenn v. Board of Education, 210 N. C., 525 , 187 S. E., 781 ; Albertson v. Albertson, 207 N.

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Duplin County

226 N.C. 719 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 20, 1946

See Power Co. v. Clay County, supra. … However, if the record correctly shows the levy as actually made, the board has no power to amend. See Power Co. v. Clay County, supra, where the authorities are cited and assembled.

Thornburgh v. . Mastin

93 N.C. 258 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 5, 1885

Cole, 7 Ired., 290 ; Blake v. Lane, 5 Ired. Eq., 412 ; Brown v. Blacknall, 5 Jones’ Eq., 423; Devereux v. Burgwyn, 5 Ired. Eq., 351 ; Headen v. Womack, 88 N. C., 468 . … Brown v. Blacknall, Blake v. Lane , and Devereux v. Burgwyn, supra, are all old equity cases, in which the Court had to pass upon the law and facts. The case of Devereux v.

Ball v. City of Hendersonville

205 N.C. 414 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 22, 1933

The only allegations in the complaint in this action with respect to the demurring defendant, the Board of Financial Control of Buncombe County, are (1) that said defendant is a corporation organized under .and by virtue … Hanks v. Utilities Co., 204 N. C., 155 , 167 S. E., 560 ; Southerland v. Harrell, 204 N. C., 675 , 169 S. E., 423 ; Ellis v. Perley, 200 N. C., 403 , 157 S. E., 29 .

Ray Ex Rel. Ray v. Robinson

216 N.C. 430 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 1, 1939

Winkler v. Killian, 141 N. C., 575 , 54 S. E., 540 ; Bank v. McCullers, 201 N. C., 412 , 160 S. E., 497 ; Landreth v. Morris, 214 N. C., 619 , 200 S. E., 378 . … Brown v. Williams, 196 N. C., 247 , 145 S. E., 233 . Upon this principle the case has been tried, and the record is apparently free from error.

Riley v. Pelletier.

134 N.C. 316 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 8, 1904

McMinn v. Hamilton, 77 N. C., 301 ; County Board v. State Board, 106 N. C., 81 ; Cherry v. Lilly, 113 N. C., 27 . … Howard v. Railroad, supra. In County Board v. State Board, supra, the motion to remove was made before the expiration of the extension of time to *319 answer, but after tbe answer was filed, and it was field too late.

Rocky Mount Savings & Trust Co. v. McDearman

213 N.C. 141 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 2, 1938

It was said in Smith v. Brown, 99 N. C., 377 , 6 S. E., 667 : “The administrator de bonis non but takes up the broken thread and carries out an interrupted and incomplete administration. … The decision in Smith v. Brown, 99 N. C., 377 , 6 S.

State v. Cummings

647 S.E.2d 430 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 8, 2007

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th day of June 2007 by Defendant to File Supplemental Brief Addressing Uttecht v. … Brown as related to issues I and II: *431 "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of June 2007."

McCleary v. NC COURT OF APPEALS

366 N.C. 244 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 28, 2012

727 S.E.2d 288 (2012) Cher McCLEARY v. N.C. COURT OF APPEALS; Gaston County Superior Court, Presiding Judge; Gaston County Clerk of Court, Hon. Lawrence N. Brown, Jr.; Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Trustee.

Ladies Benevolent Society v. Orrell

195 N.C. 405 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 4, 1928

Coke on Littleton, 4 b; Jarman on Wills, 1297; Page on Wills, secs. 846, 1023; South v. Alleine, 91 Eng. Reports, 202; Doe v. Lakeman, 109 ibid., 1054, 1057; Reed v. Reed, 9 Mass., 372 ; Green v. … In Perry v. Hackney, 142 N.

Whitley v. . Gaylord

48 N.C. 286 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1856

The counsel for the plaintiff relied on the fact that the statute gives to the bond the force of a judgment, and cited Brown v. Frazier, 1 Murph. 421 . … v.