Case law

Shelton v. . Moody

146 N.C. 426 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 17, 1907

How, then, is it possible for the defendant to be liable for the penalty for failing to discharge a duty imposed upon the Board of Commissioners after he ceases to he a member of such board ? … The plaintiff relies upon the case of Roberts v. Southern Pines, 125 N. C., 172 . It will be observed that the facts in that case are different from those presented upon this record.

Simmons v. . Allison

119 N.C. 556 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1896

Fore v. Railroad, 101 N. C., 526 : Atkinson v. Railroad, 113 N. C., 581 . … McDaniel v. Scurlock, 115 N. C., 295 .

Insurance Co. v. . Hunt

206 N.C. 724 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 20, 1934

The judgment rendered is fully supported by Brown v. Brown , 168 N.C. 4 , 84 S.E. 25 ; Yates v. Ins. Co. , 173 N.C. 473 , 92 S.E. 356 , and Boyd v. Campbell , 192 N.C. 398 , 135 S.E. 121 .

Cutler v. . Blackman

4 N.C. 368 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 5, 1816

Browne was about to reply, but was estopped by the Court. … NOTE. — See Clark v. Arnold , 3 N.C. 287 ; Dancy v. Sugg , 19 N.C. 515 .

Commissioner of Banks Ex Rel. United Bank and Trust Co. v. Gavin

202 N.C. 843 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 20, 1932

The judgment in this action is affirmed on the authority of Brown v. Polk, 201 N. C., 375 , 160 S. E., 357 , and decisions of this Court cited in the opinion in that case. … Commissioner of Banks v. Harvey, ante, 380. Affirmed.

British & American Mortgage Co. v. Long

116 N.C. 77 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1895

Bailey v. Brown, 105 N. C., 127 ; Andrews v. Whisnant, 83 N. C., 446 ; Sanders v. Thompson, 114 N. C., 282 . … Paine v. Cureton, 114 N. C., 606 .

Whitney Stores, Inc. v. Clark

277 N.C. 322 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 18, 1970

Jackson v. Board of Adjustment, 275 N.C. 155, 162-163 , 166 S.E. 2d 78, 83 , and cases cited. Predicated on the proposition that county commissioners have no inherent legislative powers, Surplus Co. v. … Be that as it may, if the Board of Commissioners does not exceed its delegated or constitutional authority, “the courts are not concerned with the motives, wisdom, or expediency which prompts its actions.” Clark’s v.

Gilmore v. . Walker

195 N.C. 460 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 11, 1928

board as a compliance with, tfie statutory requirement and request of said board tfiat said clerk file with said board tfie report annually required of him by law.” … Preston seems to have been since overthrown in Virginia, in Board v. Dunn, 27 Grat., 622. The rule generally recognized is thus stated in Brandt, Sur. sec. 522: .

Webb v. . Friedberg

189 N.C. 166 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 18, 1925

Hanley v. Donoghue, *172 116 U. S., 1 ; Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall., 457 ; Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S., 14 ; Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S., 562 ; Const. of U. S., Anno., 1923, p. 478 et seq. “By virtue of Const., U. … Marsh v. R. R., 151 N. C., 160 ; Miller v. Leach, 95 N. C., 229 . The “warehouse receipts” were under our statute made negotiable. C. S., 4077 el seq.

Taylor v. . Everett

188 N.C. 247 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 24, 1924

University v. Borden, 132 N. C., 476 ; Rousseau v. Call, 169 N. C., 173 ; Boushall v. Stronach, 172 N. C., 273 . The defendants were in default upon their agreement. … Fidelity Co. v. Jordan, 134 N. C., 236 .

Boing v. Raleigh & Gaston Railroad

88 N.C. 62 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1883

In Webb v. … Brown v. Williams, 84 N. C., 116 ; Hahn v. Guilford, supra. No error. Affirmed.

Bank of Statesville v. Town of Statesville

84 N.C. 169 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1881

See the re'cent cases Block v. Bourbon Co., 99 U. S., 686 ; Pompton v. Coop. Un., 101 U. S., 196 . In harmony with these is Belo v. Com’rs, 76 N. … Rollins v. Henry, 78 N. C., 342 . So a bond given for the first instalment of stock instead of a payment in money as the law directs, is nevertheless effectual to bind the obligor. McRae v. Russel, 12 Ired., 324 .

State v. Vietto

297 N.C. 8 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 16, 1979

State v. Davis, 246 N.C. 73, 76 , 97 S.E. 2d 444, 446 *13 (1957) (Emphasis added.) See also State v. Stewart, 292 N.C. 219 , 232 S.E. 2d 443 (1977). … See, e.g., State v. McKinney, 288 N.C. 113 , 215 S.E. 2d 578 (1975). However, even when we consider all the evidence at this defendant’s trial in the light most favorable to the State, State v.

Culpepper v. Fairfield Sapphire Valley

325 N.C. 702 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 7, 1989

386 S.E.2d 174 (1989) 325 N.C. 702 Deborah Pharr CULPEPPER, Employee, Plaintiff, v. FAIRFIELD SAPPHIRE VALLEY, Employer, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Carrier, Defendant. No. 194A89. Supreme Court of North Carolina. … Brown, Charlotte, and Ball, Kelley, Barden & Arrowood, P.A., by Phillip G. Kelley, Asheville, for plaintiff-appellee. Russell & King, P.A. by J. William Russell and Sandra M. King, Asheville, for defendant-appellant.

Ryals v. . Contracting Co.

219 N.C. 479 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 7, 1941

Nichols v. Fibre Co., supra; Williams v. Coach Co., supra; Spencer v. Brown, supra; Mack v. Marshall Field Co., supra . In S. v. … In Wilson v. Wilson, supra, Varser, J. , stated: "This statute, C. S., 564, created a substantial legal right in the parties." Nichols v. Fibre Co., supra; Williams v. Coach Co., supra; Spencer v. Brown, supra .

McDowell v. Blythe Bros. Co.

236 N.C. 396 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 5, 1952

Schaub, 225 N.C. 134 , 33 S.E. 2d 658 ; Moore v. Moore, 224 N.C. 552 , 31 S.E. 2d 690 ; O'Briant v. Bennett, 213 N.C. 400 , 196 S.E. 336 ; Bowling v. Bank, 209 N.C. 463 , 184 S.E. 13 ; Brown v. … Reece, supra; S. v. Gant, 201 N.C. 211 , 159 S.E. 427 ; Montague v. Brown, 104 N.C. 161 , 10 S.E. 186 ; Blackwell v. Dibbrell, 103 N.C. 270 , 9 S.E. 192 .

Young v. Town of Hendersonville

129 N.C. 422 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 20, 1901

The register was corrected by the Board, and the registration book alone was not evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of the Board’s declaration of the true number of qualified voters. Riggsbee v. Durham, supra. … But, until that is done, the declaration of the Board of the result is conclusive. Smallwood v. New Bern and Riggsbee v. Durham, supra. That is the main object of this action.

Gheen v. . Summey

80 N.C. 187 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1879

Earle v. Hardie, ante, 177. … Littlejohn v. Egerton, 77 N. C., 379 ; Lambert v. Kinnery, 74 N. C., 348 .

Berry v. . Hall

105 N.C. 154 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1890

Conv. 76, 77 and 87; Brown v. Mitchell, 102 N. C, 369. … AVe do not wish to be understood as modifying or relaxing the rule reiterated in Harding v. Long, 103 N. C., 1 , and in Brown v. Mitchell, 102 N.

State Ex Rel. State State Hospital at Raleigh v. Security National Bank

207 N.C. 697 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 28, 1935

See Hospital v. Fountain, 129 N. C., 90 , 39 S. E., 734 , and 128 N. C., 23 , 38 S. E., 34 . … See, also, S. v.