Case law

Marrow v. . White

151 N.C. 96 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 6, 1909

Whitehurst v. Hyman, 90 N. C., 490 ; Voorhees v. Porter, 134 N. C., 604 ; Deaver v. Deaver, 137 N. C., 244 ; Satterfield v. Kindley, 144 N. C., 461 , in which last case the point is fully and clearly presented by Mr. … Justice Brown. The nonsuit must be Reversed.

Deal v. Wilson

178 N.C. 600 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 3, 1919

Y., 162 ; King v. Brown, 2 Hill (N. Y.), 485, at 487; Lockwood v. Barnes, 3 Hill (N. Y.), 128. The same was decided in Williams v. … C., 196 ; Thomas v. Skyles, 54 N. C., 302 ; Love v. Neilson, ib., 339; Barnes v. Brown, 71 N. C., 507 ; Kelly v. Johnson, 135 N. C., 647 . Judge Gaston stated the principle strongly and impressively in Albea v.

Town of Asheboro v. Miller

220 N.C. 298 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 5, 1941

On the contrary, the original resolution adopted by the town board recites the petition, that it was certified by-the clerk, C. … If the finding by the board was erroneous it should have been corrected by appeal. C. S., 2714. Schank v. Asheville, 154 N. C., 40 , 69 S. E., 681 .

Carroway v. . Cox

44 N.C. 173 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1852

Brown on Actions 374. Poole v. Goodwin, 4 Ad. & E. 94. But the main bearing of the defence is upon the Statute of Limitations. It is necessary, therefore, to ascertain when the plaintiff’s cause of action arose. … Lilly v. Hayes, 5 Ad. & E., 548.— Walker v. Rostron, 9 Mees. & Wel., 411.

Niblett v. . Herring

49 N.C. 262 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1857

Cutter v. Powell, 6 Term Rep. 320 ; Jennings v. Camp, 13 John. Rep. 94 . The cases in this Court are Fesperman v. Parker, 10 Ire. Rep. 474 ; Winstead v. Reid, Busb. Rep. 76, and White v. Brown, 2 Jones’ Rep. 403.

Wilmington, Onslow & East Carolina Railroad v. Commissioners of Onslow County

116 N.C. 563 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 15, 1895

Grady v. Commissioners, 74 N. C., 101 . … Frank, Jr., Chairman Board County CanvassersHill King, Secretary, et al.)

Southern Railway Co. v. Cherokee County

194 N.C. 781 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 21, 1927

R. v. … BR. v. Forbes, 188 N. C., 151 .

Wade v. Wade

313 N.C. 612 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 7, 1985

330 S.E.2d 616 (1985) 313 N.C. 612 Billy Clifton WADE v. Carolyn Dodson WADE. No. 116P85. Supreme Court of North Carolina May 7, 1985. Vernon, Vernon, Wooten, Brown & Andrews, Burlington, for plaintiff.

Town of Boone v. State

369 N.C. 126 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 21, 2016

, “name a joint city-county board of health,” which varied from general law, “[wa]s a local act relating to health” in violation of the Article II limitations on local acts); Bd. of Health v. … [and] residents of the area affected should be given a voice... through the naming of outside residents to local planning boards and boards of adjustment.”).

Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company v. BUZZ OFF INSECT SHIELD, LLC

363 N.C. 802 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 28, 2010

690 S.E.2d 694 (2010) HARLEYSVILLE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. … Brown, Greensboro, Grant S. Palmer, Philadelphia, PA, for Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co. Mack Sperling, Greensboro, Cecilia O. Miller, San Diego, CA, J. Scott Ballenger, for International Garment Tech. Gary K.

Osborne v. . Wilkes

108 N.C. 651 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1891

Wittkowsky v. Wasson, 71 N. C., 451 ; State v. Brown, 100 N. C., 519 . … Brown v. Mitchell, supra; Abbott’s Tr. Ev., 171 and 172; Rankin v. West, 25 Mich., 195 ; Kluender v. Linch, 4 Keyes (N. Y.), 363.

Eudy v. Eudy

288 N.C. 71 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 26, 1975

The same *79 evidence, properly pleaded, would also have supported a verdict and judgment for divorce from bed and board. … The essential issue of residence simply was not pleaded or tried in this case as is required to support a judgment for divorce from bed and board.

McKeel Hardware Co. v. Buhmann

159 N.C. 511 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 11, 1912

Man *513 ning v. R. R., 122 N. C., 825 ; Williamson v. Cocke, 124 N. C., 585 . Indeed, the appellant should have asked the judge to find' the facts. Albertson v. Terry, 108 N. C., 75 . … Brown v. Hale, 93 N. C., 188 . The judgment should therefore be affirmed.

Tate v. City of Greensboro

114 N.C. 392 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1894

In Barnes v. … In Everett v.

State v. . Smith

117 N.C. 809 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1895

The burden was upon the defendant to show that he had license if he proposed to rely upon the defense that.the sale was authorized by law (State v. Emery, 98 N. C., 668 ; State v. Morrison, 3 Dev., 299 ; State v. … Law, Section 1506, p. 348, n. 5; State v. Farmer, 104 N. C., 887 ; State v. Brown, 109 N. C., 802 .

Hardaway Contracting Co. v. Western Carolina Power Co.

195 N.C. 649 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 23, 1928

. *652 We consider this question settled adversely to this contention, by the cases of Green v. Castlebury, 70 N. C., 20 , and Armfield v. Brown, 70 N. C., 27 .” … Sneed v. Highway Com., 194 N. C., 46 , 138 S. E., 350 ; S. v. Carroll, 194 N. C., 37 , 138 S. E., 339 ; Corp. Com. v. Mfg. Co., 185 N. C., 17 , 116 S. E., 178 . Appeal dismissed.

Kennedy v. . Wilkesboro

214 N.C. 271 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 12, 1938

Questions involved in the litigation over the municipal offices in the town of Wilkesboro in 1935 were considered by this Court in Harris v. Miller , 208 N.C. 746 , 182 S.E. 663 ; Wilkesboro v. … Baker v. Hobgood , 126 N.C. 149 , 35 S.E. 253 ; Smith v. Carolina Beach , 206 N.C. 834 , 175 S.E. 313 . Judgment affirmed.

Butler v. F. R. Penn Tobacco Co.

152 N.C. 416 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 27, 1910

Dewey v. R. R., 142 N. C., 392 . Besides, it was a public purpose. Here-it does not appear that the charter of Reidsville confers such authority on its board of commissioners. … McManus v. R. R., 150 N. C., 661 ; Tise v. Whittaker Co., 144 N. C., 511 ; Corby v. R. R., 150 Mo., 457 ; Longworth v. Sedevick, 166 ib., 221; Fielding v.

In Re Tyson

253 N.C. 662 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 20, 1961

Co. v. Industrial Commission, supra (Mo.); Schenley Distillers v. Review Board of Ind. Emp. S.D., 112 N.E. 2d 299 (Ind.); Santus v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 110 A 2d 874 (Pa.); General Electric Co. v. … Bd. of R., 110 A 2d 258 (Pa.); Wheatland Tube Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 142 A 2d 772 (Pa.); Fazio v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 63 A 2d 489 (Pa.); Krupa v. Western Union Tel.

Allred v. City of Raleigh

277 N.C. 530 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 20, 1971

Marren v. Gamble, supra; State v. Owen, 242 N.C. 525 , 88 S.E. 2d 832 . Within the limits of the powers so delegated, the municipality exercises the police power of the State. Raleigh v. … Marren v. Gamble, supra at 684, 75 S.E. 2d at 883 , and cases cited; McKinney v. High Point, 239 N.C. 232, 237 , 79 S.E. 2d 730, 734 ; Zopfi v. City of Wilmington, supra at 434, 160 S.E. 2d at 330-331 .