Case law

State v. Welch

232 N.C. 77 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 10, 1950

Parker v. Commonwealth, 135 Va. 625 , 115 S.E. 566 ; State v. … Green v. Commonwealth, 195 Ky. 698 , 243 S.W. 917 ; People v. Ninehouse, 227 Mich. 480 , 198 N.W. 973 ; Maloney v. State, 119 Tex. Cr. 273, 45 S.W. 2d 216 .

Willis v. . New Bern

191 N.C. 507 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 31, 1926

Russell v. Monroe , 116 N.C. 720 ; Neal v. Marion , 126 N.C. 412 ; Fitzgerald v. Concord , 140 N.C. 110 ; Brown v. Durham , 141 N.C. 249 ; Darden v. Plymouth , 166 N.C. 492 ; Foster v. Tryon , 169 N.C. 182 ; Duke v. … Duke v. Belhaven , 174 N.C. 96 ; Bunch v. Edenton , 90 N.C. 431 ; Brown v. Durham , 141 N.C. 249 . In Brown v.

Cameron v. State Highway Commission

188 N.C. 84 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 21, 1924

Jones v. Boyd, 80 N. C., 258 ; Mayo v. Comrs., 122 N. C., 5 ; Hooker v. Greenville, 130 N. C., 472 ; Hyatt v. DeHart, 140 N. C., 270 ; Lee v. Waynesville, 184 N. C., 565 ; School Committee v. Board of Education, 186 N. … In Road Commission v.

State Ex Rel. Phillips v. Slaughter

209 N.C. 543 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 26, 1936

DeLoatch v. Rogers, 86 N. C., 358 ; Hendersonville v. Jordan, 150 N. C., 35 . … Tea Co. v. Hood, Comr. of Banks, 205 N. C., 313 ; Phifer v. Berry, 202 N. C., 388 . The demurrer presents this question of law: Is absentee voting permitted in municipal elections?

Marshall v. Southern Railway Co.

233 N.C. 38 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 13, 1950

Hooks, 218 N.C. 105 , 10 S.E. 2d 608 ; Sibbitt v. Transit Co., 220 N.C. 702 , 18 S.E. 2d 203 ; Dillon v. Winston-Salem, 221 N.C. 512 , 20 S.E. 2d 845 ; Pike v. Seymour, 222 N.C. 42 , 21 S.E. 2d 884 ; Allen v. … Oil Corp., 228 N.C. 774 , 47 S.E. 2d 254 ; Tyson v. Ford, 228 N.C. 778 , 47 S.E. 2d 251 ; Cox v. Lee, 230 N.C. 155 , 52 S.E. 2d 355 ; Brown v. Bus Lines, 230 N.C. 493 , 53 S.E. 2d 539 ; Hollingsworth v.

Godette v. . Gaskill

151 N.C. 52 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 22, 1909

Dunlap v. Glidden, 31 Me., 439; Phelps v. Stearns, 70 Mass., 106 ; Cunningham v. Brown, 18 Vt., 126 ; Bostwick v. Lewis, 2 Day (Conn.), 456; Smith v. Lewis, 3 Johns (N. Y.), 165, 169; Grove v. Brandenburg, 7 Blackf. … Taylor v. Bidwell, 65 Cal., 490 ; 1 Cyc., 687; 22 A. & E., 698. Rice v.

Lawson v. Bank of Bladenboro

203 N.C. 368 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 26, 1932

Aydlett v. Brown, 153 N. C., 334 ; Armstrong v. Lonon, 149 N. C., 434 ; Cline v. Rudisill, 126 N. C., 523 . . . . … Ore Co. v. Powers, 130 N. C., 152 ; Aydlett v. Brown, 153 N. C., 334 .” In Parks v. Trust Co., 195 N. C., at p. 455-6: “Speaking to the subject in Waggoner v. Publishing Co., 190 N. C., 829 , 130 S.

In Re Wittkowsky's Land

143 N.C. 248 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 4, 1906

S. v. Jones , 139 N.C. 618 . … Martin v. Briscoe, ante .

Levin v. Town of Burlington

55 L.R.A. 396 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 5, 1901

by the people within the corporate limits of the said town; and by policemen, duly appointed by the said Board of Aldermen or Commissioners. “3. … That a municipality may be sued and held liable for damage in many cases is held in Lewis v. City of Raleigh, 77 N. C., 229; Moffitt v. City of Asheville, 103 N. C., 255 , 14 Am. St. Rep., 810 , and Shields v.

School Directors v. City of Asheville

128 N.C. 249 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 14, 1901

But tbe Court, in tbe case of Board of Education of Vance County v. The Town of Henderson, 126 N. C., 689 , after an advisari, pointed out tbe difference between forfeitures and penalties and fines. … of Education v.

Nelson v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. Relief Department

147 N.C. 103 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 11, 1908

Even a State department, like the Insane Asylum (Bain v. State, 86 N. C., 49 ), or the Board of Education (County Board v. State Board, 106 N. C., 81 ), or the State Prison (Moody v. State Prison, 128 N. … It is true, as in Stanly v. Railroad, 89 N.

Turner v. . Eford

58 N.C. 106 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1859

So they have .brought the case within the principle established by Cloninger v. Summit, 2 Jones’ Eq. 513, and Cousins v. … This principle is fully recognised by Pinckston v.

Prudential Insurance Co. of America 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 .

Marshall v. . Hastings

174 N.C. 480 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 7, 1917

as such board were authorized and empowered by law to take the plaintiff’s land and to construct the road through his farm. … Fore v. Feimster, 171 N. C., 551 ; Hipp v. Farrell, 173 N. C., 91 , S. E., 831; Templeton v. Heard, 159 N. C., 63 . Affirmed.

Vincent v. . Vincent

193 N.C. 492 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 6, 1927

The petition sets out a good cause of action for divorce from bed and board. … Skittletharpe v. Skittletharpe, 130 N. C., 72 ; Hooper v. Hooper, 164 N. C., 1 ; Crews v. Crews, 175 N. C., 168 .

Pickelsimer Ex Rel. Gash v. Pickelsimer

255 N.C. 408 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 27, 1961

Redmon v. Roberts, 198 N.C. 161 , 150 S.E. 881 . In this respect, in Brown v. … Gorrell v. Water Supply Co., 124 N.C. 328 , 32 S.E. 720 ; Parlier v. Miller, 186 N.C. 501 , 119 S.E. 898 ; Thayer v. Thayer, 189 N.C. 502 , 127 S.E. 553 ; Boone v. Boone, 217 N.C. 722 , 9 S.E. 2d 383 , Chipley v.

Chairman v. . Clark

11 N.C. 43 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1825

This case presents the precise question that was made in McKellar v. Bowell, ante , 34. In that case the Superior Court rejected the evidence properly; in this case it was erroneously admitted. … Cited: Armistead v. Harramond, post , 341; Governor v. Carter , 25 N.C. 341 ; Brown v. Pike , 74 N.C. 534 ; Moore v. Alexander , 96 N.C. 36 . (44)

Horner School v. . Wescott

124 N.C. 518 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 25, 1899

Payment for board and tuition must be made on September 1, 1891, $62.50; November 1, 1891, $62.50; January 18, 1892, $62.50; April 1, 1892, $62.50. … Horner & Graves v. Barker, 74 N. C., 65 ; Bingham v. Richardson, 60 N. C., 215 .

State v. . Davis

171 N.C. 809 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 31, 1916

The charter of the town of Andrews specifically authorizes the board of aldermen “to make regulations to cause the due observance of Sunday” ; but if this were not sufficient, the Revisal, sec. 2923, gives power to cities … Frolickstein v. Mobile, 40 Ala., 725 ; Scales v. State, 47 Ark., 476; Com. v. Has., 122 Mass., 40 ; Com. v. Wolf, 3 S. and R. (Pa.), 48; Specht v. Com., 8 Pa. St., 312; Society, etc., v. Com., 53 Pa.

Miller v. . Pitts

152 N.C. 629 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 25, 1910

Presler v. Stallworth, 37 Ala., 402 . *632 Tbis Court, in Ármistead v. Harrimond, 11 N. … Tbis case was cited witb approval in Brown v. Pike, 74 N. C., 531 . In consequence of prior decisions of tbis Court, tbe act of 1844, cb. 38, was passed, and in tbe construction given to tbat act in Brown v.