Case law

Richardson v. Bank of America

659 S.E.2d 740 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 6, 2008

659 S.E.2d 740 (2008) RICHARDSON v. BANK OF AMERICA. No. 240PA07. Supreme Court of North Carolina. March 6, 2008. John H. Culver, III, F.Amy Pritchard Williams, Charlotte, Walter E. … Christopher Browning, Jr., Solicitor General, Philip A. Lehman, M. Lynne Weaver, Assistant Attorney Generals, L. McNeil Chestnut, Special Deputy Attorney General and Counsel to the Commissioner of Banks, Gary E.

Stroud v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

133 N.C. 253 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1903

The Code, see. 550; Simmons v. Andrews, 106 *254 N. C., 201. … Peebles v. Braswell, 107 N. C., 68 ; Brown v. House, 119 N. C., 622 , and the counter motion to dismiss for failure to print tbe record and briefs within the time prescribed by Rule 34, 131 N.

Holden v. . Warren

118 N.C. 326 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1896

Stokes v. Taylor, 104 N. C., 394 ; Fulps v. Mock, 108 N. C., 601 ; Simmons v. Allison, at this Term. … Brown, at this Term) and the cause is remanded that judgment for the plaintiff may be entered upon the verdict helow. Reversed.

Thompson v. City of Goldsboro

151 N.C. 189 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 20, 1909

But, in .numerous cases, to require consumers of water to lay separate pipes to eacb and ¿very one of their several bouses would cause considerable expense and outlay of money on their part, and in this instance tbe board … S. v. Water Works, 32 Fed., 747 , applies the principle which we hold to be controlling on the facts presented here.

Scottish Carolina Timber & Land Co. v. Brooks

109 N.C. 698 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1891

Bullinger v. Marshall, 70 N. C., 520 ; McDonald v. Cannon, 82 N. C., 245 ; Wall v. Williams, 91 N. C., 477 ; Edwards v. Cowper, 99 N. C., 421 . … The mere fact that he sawed them into boards and received the value of them in the shape of lumber, could not destroy the fact that he got their value, as logs, in cash.

Boykin v. . Barnes

76 N.C. 318 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1877

Summers v. McKay 64 N. C. 555 . They certainly have not placed themselves in a better situation. … State v. Brown, 67 N. C. 475 , does *320 not apply ; there was no novation here. • The note sued on was not subject to scale. There is no error. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed-

McNeill v. . Currie

117 N.C. 341 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1895

The judgment against the guardian was held conclusive against the surety on the bond, in Brown v. Pike, 74 N. C., 531 , but since then this, has been changed by the Act of 1881, now The Code, Sec. 1345. Moore v. … C., 287 , Woody v. Jordan, 69 N.

Collie v. Commissioners of Franklin County

145 N.C. 170 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 10, 1907

*Page 124 It is admitted that the questions presented by this appeal have been passed upon adversely to the contention of the defendant in two cases — Barksdale v. Comrs. , 93 N.C. 473 , and Board of Education v. … Board v. Comrs. , 111 N.C. 585 . "Schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged," says the Constitution. Why?

State v. Hawkins

214 N.C. 326 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 2, 1938

. - An ironing board was near by and a shirt was in her hand. An empty shell recently fired and a shell loaded with No. 6 shot were found by the coroner in the hallway of the house. The defendant was not then at home. … E., 14 , Brown, J., said: “We might hesitate to admit evidence of threats made two years before tbe homicide, if they stood alone, although threats made twelve months prior were admitted in S. v. Howard, 82 N.

Williamson v. Pilot Life Insurance

212 N.C. 377 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1937

J., in Grier v. Ins. Co., supra. See Kendrick v. Ins. Co., 124 N. C., 315 , 32 S. E., 728 ; 70 A. S. R., 592; Harper v. Dail, 92 N. C., 394 ; Bank v. Robertson, 210 N, C., 436, 187 S. E., 575 ; Pate v. Gaitley, 183 N. … As said by Brown, J., in that case: “The defendant better change its custom rather than knowingly to embody in its policies statements it declares are untrue.” There was error in sustaining the motion to nonsuit.

Schooldev E., LLC v. Town of Wake Forest

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 13, 2024

On the other hand, if a petitioner alleges that the board’s action was -14-  SCHOOLDEV E., LLC V. … Allred v.

State ex rel. Hodge v. Marietta & North Georgia Railroad

108 N.C. 24 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 15, 1891

In this Court, the County Board of Education of Wake asked to be substituted as relator, or as party plaintiff, under the provisions of The Code, §965. … Justices of Tyrrell v. Simmons, 3 Jones, 187 ; Grant v. Rogers, supra. The amendment cannot be allowed, because the law confers no right upon the County Board of Education of Wake to maintain the action.

Maxwell v. . Hipp

64 N.C. 98 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1870

The legislative scale does not apply to this contract, as the consideration was not Confederate money: Robeson v. Brown, 63 N. C. 554 ; Garrett v. Smith, at this term. There was error in the ruling of his Honor.

Troy v. . Troy

60 N.C. 624 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1864

Cited: Parks v. Robinson , 138 N.C. 271 ; Herring v. Williams , 153 N.C. 235 ; s. c. , 158 N.C. 4 , 9 , 18 ; Mabry v. Brown , 162 N.C. 221 , 223 . *Page 412 (628)

Henderson v. . Wilson

16 N.C. 309 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1829

Ashburner, (1 Brown ch. 502) — Robinson v. Taylor, (2 Do. 589)— Stansfield v. Habergham, (10 Ves. 279)— Williams v. Coade, (10 Ves 500) — Gibbs v. Ougier, (12 Ves. 415) — Hooper v. Goodwin, (18 Ves. 156) — Chambers v. … Also in Brown v.

Gregg v. City of Wilmington

155 N.C. 18 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 19, 1911

Quimby had been permitted by the city to pile boards upon a street in front of his house while making repairs on it. This was negligently done, and the city was compelled to pay damages to a person injured thereby. … Brown v. Louisburg , 126 N.C. 701 ; Raleigh v. R. R. , 129 N.C. 265 ; and those cases can not in any way be distinguished from the one now under consideration.

Tuttle v. Junior Building Corp.

228 N.C. 507 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 25, 1948

E., 558 , and usually, a corporation may sell, transfer, and convey its corporate real estate only when authorized to do so by its board of directors. G. S. 55-26 (10). These statutory provisions (G. S. 55-48; G. … S. 55-26 (10)), are supplemented by a stipulation in defendant’s'bylaws as follows: “Full executive power shall be vested in the board of directors in the transaction of any and all business of the corporation of any and

Oliphant v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

171 N.C. 303 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 5, 1916

BrowN, J. During the selection of tbe jury one Darden was challenged by plaintiff for cause. Upon examination he stated he was an employee of defendant, being a clerk in its legal department. … Blevins v. Cotton Mills, 150 N. C., 493 ; Featherstone v. Cotton Mills, 159 N. C., 429 ; Waters v. Lumber Co., 165 N. C., 388 ; Starr v. Oil Co., 165 N. C., 587 ; Norris v. Mills, 154 N. C., 474 .

Turner v. . McKee

137 N.C. 251 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 17, 1904

In Staton v. … This has been cited with approval in Stanly v. Baird , 118 N.C. 83 ; Sanders v. Earp , 118 N.C. 279 ; S. v. Oswalt , 118 N.C. 1213 ; 32 L.R.A., 396 ; S. v. Deyton , 119 N.C. 882 ; Staton v.

Edwards v. . Moore

99 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1888

Weaver v. Jones, 82 N. C., 440; Doyle v. Brown, 72 N. C., 393 . … Sumner v. Sessoms, 94 N. C., 371 ; Cates v. Pickett, 97 N. C., 21 , and the cases there cited. There is no error.