Case law

Joyner v. Futrell.

136 N.C. 301 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 25, 1904

C., 482 ; Brown v. Coble, 76 N. C., 391 ; Mebane v. Mebane, 80 N. C., 34 ; Latta v. Vickers, 82 N. C., 501 ; Foushee v. Durham, 84 N. C., 56 ; Miller v. Feezor, 82 N. C., 192 ; Attorney-General v. Navigation Co., 86 N. … C., 108 ; Vanderbilt v. Brown, 128 N. C., 498 ; Mason v. Osgood, 64 N. C., 467 ; Rorer Jud. Sales, sec. 122.

State v. . Hooker

207 N.C. 648 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 28, 1935

S. v. Brown, 206 N. C., 747 , 175 S. E., 116 . … E., 737 , though this may have been extended or waived, Roberts v. Bus Co., 198 N. C., 779 , 153 S. E., 398 , and nothing more has been done. S. v. Ray, 206 N. C., 736 , 175 S. E., 109 ; Weaver v. Hampton, 206 N.

Wadsworth Land Co. v. Piedmont Traction Co.

162 N.C. 503 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 28, 1913

This has been very fully discussed and demonstrated in Phillips v. Telegraph Co., 130 N. C., 520 ; Hodges w. Telegraph Co., 133 N. C., 225 ; Brown v. Power Co., 140 N. C., 334 ; Beasley v. R. R., 145 N. C., 272 . … In Brown v. Power Co., 140 N.

State v. . Smith

100 N.C. 550 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1888

Little v. May, 3 Hawks, 599 ; State v. Spainhour, 2 D & B., 547; Woolard v. McCullough, 1 Ired., 432 ; Welch v. Piercy, 7 Ired., 365 ; State v. Davis, 68 N. C., 297 . … It was contended by the defendant’s counsel in the Court below, that the petition for the road was addressed to the “ Board of Supervisors of public roads,” in a particular township, and not to the Board of County Commissioners

Russell v. . Stewart

64 N.C. 487 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1870

Dula v. Cowles, 7 Jon. 290; Winstead v. Reid, Bus. 76; White v. Brown, 2 Jon. 403.

Flake Ex Rel. Flake v. Greensboro News Co.

212 N.C. 780 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 2, 1938

Brown v. Lumber Co., supra. … Brown v. Lumber Co., supra; Reid v. Providence Journal Co., 20 R.

Faison v. Grandy.

128 N.C. 438 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 1, 1901

Ward v. Sugg, 113 N. C., 489 , and cases there cited, wherein Coor v. Spicer, 65 N. C., 401 is disapproved. … Webb on Usury, sec. 365; Davis v. Garr, 6 N. Y., 124 ; 55 Am. Dec., 398 .

Margaret McLennan v. R. C. Chisholm.

66 N.C. 100 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1872

It is true, that in the case of Howe v. … the designation of his plantation, and in the case of Bradshaw v.

State v. Sanders

295 N.C. 361 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 14, 1978

Defendant relies largely upon the recent case of Brown v. … . *372 In Brown v.

Bryan v. Wilson

259 N.C. 107 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 20, 1963

A Board of Adjustment cannot amend an ordinance. Lee v. Board of Adjustment, 226 N.C. 107 , 37 S.E. 2d 128 , 168 A.L.R. 1 . … One of the aids in ascertaining the legislative intent is the doctrine of ejusdem generis which this Court applied in Chambers v. Board of Adjustment, 250 N.C. 194 , 108 S.E. 2d 211 , cited in appellants’ brief.

Doe 1K v. Roman Cath. Diocese

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 31, 2025

The plaintiff then argued that the effect of that statute was to permit “a new cause of action” on his brown lung claim—one that essentially ignored the existing judgment. Id. at 142. … Wallace v. Bone, 304 N.C. 591, 598 (1982).

Wool v. Saunders

108 N.C. 729 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 15, 1891

Harris v. Ewing, supra; Currie v. Gobson, 4 Jones’ Eq., 25; Munroe v. McCormack, 6 Ired. Eq., 85 . … Brown v. Brown, 106 N. C., 451 .

Moss v. Tate

264 N.C. 544 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 2, 1965

These boards are approximately 8 feet long with black and yellow cross-hatchings across the boards with beaded points applied to them to reflect lights. … Bundy v. Powell, 229 N.C. 707, 711 , 51 S.E. 2d 307 ; Strong, N. C. Index, Trial § 21.

State v. . Johnston

119 N.C. 883 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1896

In S. v. … In S. v.

Williamson v. Jones.

127 N.C. 178 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 20, 1900

The answer (sec. 7), avers “that it is admitted that the report was made to the said board,.and filed, but the defendants aver that the said report was and is specially erroneous, and generally so in not giving the credits … Commissioners v. White, 123 N. C., 534 (in which the commissioners wished to attack the settlement); Commissioners v. Wall, 117 N. C., 377; Suttle v. Doggett, 87 N. C., 203 ; Davenport v. McKee, 98 N. C., 500 .

State Ex Rel. Wallace v. Bone

304 N.C. 591 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 12, 1982

In Book v. … All members of the board are ex officio.

Herring v. Cumberland Lumber Co.

159 N.C. 382 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 28, 1912

If such laife are violated, and the defendant takes advantage of the plaintiff’s condition or situation, there the plaintiff shall recover.’ ” Lord Mansfield said, in Browning v. … H., 101; Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U. S., 487 . The case of Morville v. Am.

American Agricultural Chemical Co. v. Brock

198 N.C. 342 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 19, 1930

Under these provisions the board of aldermen determined the tax rate and levied upon the taxable property in the city on 23 July, 1928, and on 28 July, 1928, the board of county commissioners made a like assessment upon property … Wooten v. Sugg, 114 N. C., 295 ; Exum v. Baker, 115 N. C., 242 ; Smith v. Miller, 158 N. C., 99, 103 .

Hedgepeth Ex Rel. Hedgepeth v. Coleman

183 N.C. 309 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 12, 1922

Simmons v. Morse, 51 N. C., 6 ; Brown v. Lumber Co., 167 N. C., 11 ; Hall v. Hall, 179 N. C., 571 ; Paul v. Auction Co., 181 N. C., 1 . … Tuson v. Evans, 12 A. & E., 733; Snyder v. Andrews, 6 Barbour (N. Y.), 43; Keene v. Ruff, 1 Clarke (Iowa), 482; Swindle v. State, 21 Am.. Dec., 515; Odgers, supra, 161; Brown v. Lumber Co., 167 N. C., 9 .

Reeves v. . Reeves

82 N.C. 348 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1880

Wilson v. Wilson, 2 Dev. & Bat., 377 . … Judge Gaston’s opinion in the case of Wilson v.