Case law

Rasberry v. . Hicks

199 N.C. 702 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 12, 1930

In Glenn v. Culbreth , 197 N.C. at p. 678, citing numerous authorities, it is said: "The law provided for the regular city election on the first Monday in May, 1929. … Board of Education v. Commissioners of Johnston , 198 N.C. 430 . The court will take judicial notice of the fact that the general election was held on 4 November, 1930. For the reasons given, the appeal is Dismissed.

McArthur v. . Griffith

147 N.C. 545 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 6, 1908

Busbee v. Macy, 85 N. C., 329 ; Busbee v. Lewis, 85 N. C., 332 ; Browning v. Lavendar, 104 N. C., 69 ; Thompson v. Etowah Iron Co., 91 Ga., 538 ; Lick v. Bay, 43 Cal., 83 . … Browning v. Lavendar, supra. The widow and heirs of J. P. Hannah properly brought their action to have the note and mortgage cancelled, so as to remove the cloud from their title. Byerly v. Humphrey, 95 N.

Lochner v. Silver Sales Service, Inc.

232 N.C. 70 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 10, 1950

Garland v. Improvement Co., 184 N.C. 551 , 115 S.E. 164 . What was said in Aydlett v. Brown, 153 N.C. 334 , 69 S.E. 243 , is apropos here. … Brown v. Featherstone, 202 N.C. 569 , 163 S.E. 558 . Furthermore, no sufficient foundation was laid for the introduction of the advertisements.

Holmes Electric Co. v. Carolina Power & Light Co.

197 N.C. 766 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 20, 1929

Lumber Co. v. Pemberton, 188 N. C., 532 , 125 S. E., 19 ; Jenkins v. Parker, 192 N. C., 188 , 134 S. E., 419 . … Pugh v. York, 74 N. C., 383 . For instance, an objection to remarks made by a judge during the trial must be made in apt time. An objection made after verdict is not in apt time. S. v. Brown, 100 N. C., 519 , 6 S.

Withers v. Black

230 N.C. 428 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 25, 1949

Lumberton, 215 N.C. 752 , 3 S.E.2d 324 ; Pickard v. Plaid Mills, 213 N.C. 28 , 195 S.E. 28 ; Holmes v. Brown Co., 207 N.C. 785 , 178 S.E. 569 ; Winberry v. Farley Stores, Inc., 204 N.C. 79 , 167 S.E. 475 ; Conrad v. … Ed.), section 1560; Brown v. Aluminum Co., 224 N.C. 766 , 32 S.E.2d 320 ; Conrad v. Foundry Co., supra.

Pool v. . Trexler

76 N.C. 297 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1877

Brown v. Keener, 74 N. C. 714 . I take this proposition to be settled and will not attempt to make “a rehash” of the cases set out by Cooley, ch. 16,. “Constitutional Limitations.”

Lockville Power Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co.

168 N.C. 219 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 3, 1915

Bason v. Mining Co., supra, has been cited and approved, Clayton v. Gagle, 97 N. C., 302 ; Shaffer v. Hahn, 111 N. C., 8 ; Heath v. Cotton Mills, 115 N. C., 207 ; Clark v. Hodge, 116 N. … Brown v. Brown, 106 N. C., 451 ; Davis v. Higgins, 91 N. C., 382 .

Riddle v. . Cumberland

180 N.C. 321 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 10, 1920

This was substantially said in Younts v. Comrs. , 151 N.C. 582 . It was held in Briggs v. … Cavers , 22 Iowa 343 ; Cattell v. Lowry et al. , 45 Iowa 478 ; Carpenter v. Ely , 4 Wis. 438 ; The People v. Matteson , 17 Ill. 167 ; The People v. McManus , 34 Barb., 620 ; The State ex rel. v.

State v. . Long

81 N.C. 563 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1879

State v. Long, 76 N. C., 254 . … The case states that the order of appointment was delivered by him to the clerk of the board, when the justices of the peace composing the board were not present; and no order of the board relieving the defendant on the condition

Morgan v. Hood Ex Rel. Page Trust Co.

211 N.C. 91 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 6, 1937

See Bank v. Trotter, 207 N. C., 442 , 177 S. E., 325 ; Chavis v. Brown, 174 N. C., 122 , 93 S. E., 471 ; Bank v. McEwen, 160 N. C., 414 , 76 S. E., 222 ; Morris v. Grier, 76 N. C., 410 ; Moye v. Cogdell, 69 N. C., 93 .

Chitty v. . Parker

172 N.C. 126 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 4, 1916

In Gill v. Comrs., 160 N. … Gi ll v. Comrs., supra.

McNeill v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

167 N.C. 390 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 2, 1914

C., 245 ; Brown, J., in Allen v. R. R., ib., 340; Walker, J., in Morrow v. R. R., 147 N. C., 627 ; Brown, J., in Hammett v. R. R., 157 N. C., 322 ; Shepherd, v. R. R., 163 N. C., 518 . … To same effect are Guilford v. R. R., 154 N. C., 607 ; Hoke, J., in Edge v. R. R., 153 N. C., 212 ; Hoke, J., in Sawyer v. R. R., 145 N. C., 24 ; Arrowood v. R. R., 126 N. C., 629 ; Pickett v. R. R., 117 N. C., 616 .

Stone v. Steamship Co.

139 N.C. 193 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 3, 1905

Morehead v. Brown, 51 N. C., 367 . Furthermore, the plaintiff had been promptly notified of the arrival of the goods, and, so far as appears, had been given ample time and opportunity to remove them. … Chalk v. Railroad, 85 N. C., 423 ; Holdsclaw v. Duff, 21 Mo., 392 . No Error.

Thompson v. Town of Lumberton

182 N.C. 260 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 26, 1921

Busbee v. Macy, 85 N. C., 329 . … In S. v. R. R., 145 N.

Bailey v. . Light Co.

212 N.C. 768 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 2, 1938

as said board is now constituted. … directors of the corporation is challenged, on the principle of Gorrell v.

Herndon v. North Carolina Railroad

121 N.C. 498 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1897

Brown v. Mitchell , 102 N.C. 347 ; Ferebee v. Pritchard , 112 N.C. 83 ; Clark v. Riddle , 118 N.C. 692 ; Nathan v. R. R., ib. , 1066.

Swann v. . Mercer

3 N.C. 246 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1803

After long arguments by Brown for plaintiff and Haywood for defendant, the Court took an advisari , and at June Term, 1804, the suit was remanded to Edenton District Court, upon its being suggested that the parties had compromised … The arguments of the counsel are omitted here, as the same question arose and was very fully argued in Sheppard v. Sheppard , 7 N.C. 333 . *Page 230 (262)

Kiger v. . Terry

119 N.C. 456 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1896

Thornton on Gifts and Advancements, 591 ; Melvin v. Bullard, 82 N. C., 33 ; James v. James, 76 N. C., 331 . … Harper v. Harper, 92 N. C., 300 .

Davis v. Heide & Co.

161 N.C. 476 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 19, 1913

We held in Morse v. Heide, 152 N. … The case of O’Brien v. Larringer, 36 S. C., 497, cited by the defendant’s counsel, is not in point. It is like the case of Morse v. Heide, supra.

Shute v. City of Monroe

187 N.C. 676 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 7, 1924

The record shows that the board of aldermen, on 14 July, 1922, unanimously adopted the following ordinance: “Ordinance opening Charlotte Avenue. “The Board of Aldermen of the City of Monroe, N. C., do ordain: “1. … Long v. Rockingham, ante, 204.