Case law

Taylor ex rel. Davenport v. Taylor

210 N.C. 837 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 4, 1936

Suffice it to say, it fails to establish liability under the principles announced in Hankins v. Hankins, 202 N. C., 358 , 162 S. E., 766 ; Townsend v. Holderby, 197 N. C., 550 , 149 S. E., 855 ; Brown v. Brown, 124 N.

Rouse v. WILLIAMS REALTY BLDG. CO., INC.

554 S.E.2d 337 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 9, 2001

ROUSE, Sandy Rouse, and Federal Insurance Company, v. WILLIAMS REALTY BUILDING COMPANY, INCORPORATED. No. 263A01. Supreme Court of North Carolina. November 9, 2001. Everett Gaskins Hancock & Stevens by E.D. … Brown, Crump, Vanore & Tierney, L.L.P. by Andrew A. Vanore, III, and Christopher G. Lewis, Raleigh, for cross-claim defendant-appellant Federal Insurance Company. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED.

State v. . Mallard

184 N.C. 667 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 25, 1922

In S. v. Banner, 149 N. C., at p. 521, the objection was that three years had elapsed without a revision of the jury list by the board of commissioners. It was held that this did not avoid the panel. … of commissioners, and the box by the clerk of the board.

Bagwell v. . Hines

187 N.C. 690 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 7, 1924

Wilkins v. Norman, 139 N. C., 39 ; Blackwell v. Blackwell, 124 N. C., 269 ; Rowland v. Rowland, 93 N. C., 214 ; Hafner v. Irwin, 20 N. C., 570 . … C., 394 , opinion by Associate Justice Brown, wherein it was held that except when otherwise controlled by an arbitrary rule of law, as by the rule in Shelley’s case, the question was largely one of intent, and if on a perusal

Quelch v. . Futch

174 N.C. 395 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 24, 1917

L., 814; Hughes v. Brown, 88 Tenn., 578 . “The object is to preserve the right of any person having it at the time of instituting an action on his title.” Long v. Orrell, 35 N. C., 129 . … Marlin v. Young, 85 N. C., 158 .

State v. . Watson

208 N.C. 70 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 20, 1935

S. v. Brown, 206 N. C., 747 , 175 S. E., 116 . No bond was required, as the defendant was granted the privilege of appealing in forma pauperis. S. v. Stafford, 203 N. C., 601 , 166 S. E., 734 . … S. v. Etheridge, 207 N. C., 801 .

City of Raleigh v. Fisher

232 N.C. 629 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 22, 1950

Oldham v. Ross, 214 N.C. 696 , 200 S.E. 393 ; Churchwell v. Trust Co., 181 N.C. 21 , 105 S.E. 889 ; Alston v. Hill, 165 N.C. 255 , 81 S.E. 291 ; Helms v. Holton, 152 N.C. 587 , 67 S.E. 1061 . … Jur., Statutes, section 555; Brown v.

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.

Dick v. . Pitchford

21 N.C. 480 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1837

Jun. 189, and 3 Brown’s Ch. C. 340,) rendered in 1791. … Wood- *486 meston v. Walker, 2 Russ. & Mylne, 197; Brown v. Pocock, Ibid. 210; and Cooper’s Sel. Ca. 70.

Harleysville Ins. v. Buzz Off Insect

664 S.E.2d 564 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 24, 2008

664 S.E.2d 564 (2008) HARLEYSVILLE INS. v. BUZZ OFF INSECT. No. 272A08. Supreme Court of North Carolina. June 24, 2008. David L. Brown, John I. Malone, Jr., Greensboro, for Harleysvilie Mutual Ins. Co.

In Re the Denial by the Secretary of Revenue of Claim for Refund of North Carolina Inheritance Taxes by the Estate of Kapoor

303 N.C. 102 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 5, 1981

On 17 February 1978, pursuant to G.S. 105-241.2, the executor filed for review before the Tax Review Board. The Board held a hearing and affirmed the decision of the Secretary of Revenue. … State v. Fulcher, 294 N.C. 503 , 243 S.E. 2d 338 (1978).

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 v. Rogers

275 N.C. 411 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 11, 1969

State v. Brown, 233 N.C. 202 , 63 *423 S.E. 2d 99. … State v. Yoes and Hale v. State, supra ( 271 N.C. 616 , 157 S.E. 2d 386 ); State v. Brown, supra; State v. Mallard, 184 N.C. 667 , 114 S.E. 17 , and cases there cited.

CHAS. H. JENKINS & COMPANY v. Lewis

259 N.C. 85 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 20, 1963

Williams v. Hunter, 257 N.C. 754 , 127 S.E.2d 546 ; Mercer v. Hilliard, 249 N.C. 725 , 107 S.E.2d 554 , and cases cited. … Commercial Credit Corporation v. Brown (Tex.

State Ex Rel. Cooper v. Ridgeway Mfg.

655 S.E.2d 713 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 14, 2007

COOPER v. RIDGEWAY MFG. No. 408A07. Supreme Court of North Carolina. November 14, 2007. J. Nicholas Ellis, for Ridgeway Mfg. & Heflin. Richard L. Harrison, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher G. … Brown, Jr., Solicitor *714 General, Melissa L. Trippe, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State ex rel. Cooper. Richard T. Boyette, Raleigh, for Ridgeway, Inc., et al.

Miller v. . Pierce

104 N.C. 389 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1889

I, 302; Phillips & Amos’ Ev., 776; Cumming v. Arnold, 3 Met., 494 . The strong intimation of this Court in the same direction, in Faw v. Whittington, 72 N. … Faw v. Whittington, supra.

Daniel v. McRae

9 N.C. 590 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 15, 1823

Plaintiff, relied upon the cases of Smith v. Knox — (3 Esp. Rep. 46, and Charles *602 v. Marsden — (1 Taunt. 224.) I allude to the case of Brown v. Mott — ( 7 Johnson 361 .) … The case 15 East's Rep. 216 — Brown and others v. Maffey, may on first view seem to be artalagous. But Í think it essentially differs.

Robinson Manufacturing Co. v. Blaylock

192 N.C. 407 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 27, 1926

Thereafter the board of education, on order of the bonding company, expended $277.41 for the completion of the building, leaving a balance of $3,716.06 due under the contract, and held by the school board as the 15% retained … Patton v. Carr, 117 N. C., 176 .” *415 In Wells v.

State v. . Williams

208 N.C. 352 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 26, 1935

S. v. Brown, 206 N. C., 747 , 175 S. E., 116 . No bond was required, as the defendant was granted the privilege of appealing in forma pau-peris. S. v. Stafford, 203 N. C., 601 , 166 S. E., 734 . … S. v. Hamlet, 206 N. C., 568 , 174 S. E., 451 . Tbe motion of tbe Attorney-General must be allowed. S. v. Watson, ante, 70. Appeal dismissed.

Fanelty v. Rogers Jewelers, Inc.

230 N.C. 694 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 12, 1949

Tea Co., 218 N.C. 732 , 12 S.E. 2d 242 ; Griggs v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 218 N.C. 166 , 10 S.E. 2d 623 ; Brown v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 217 N.C. 368 , 8 S.E. 2d 199 ; Pridgen v. … Pratt v. Tea Co., supra; Brown v. Montgomery Ward & Co., supra. Indeed, tbe testimony of tbe plaintiff’s witness, Wayne Broad-burst, affirmatively absolves defendant from responsibility for putting it there.