Case law

Noah v. Southern Railway Co.

229 N.C. 176 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 4, 1948

The objection to this instruction is, that it omits the essential elements of concurring negligence, as pointed out in Brown v. Montgomery Ward, 217 N. C., 368 , 8 S. E. (2d), 199 , and Wright v. Grocery Co., 210 N. … Tyson v. Ford, 228 N. C., 778 , 47 S. E. (2d), 251 . It is enough if it contribute to the injury as a proximate cause, or one of them. Godwin v. R. R., 220 N. C., 281 , 17 S. E. (2d), 137 .

Crowell v. Tallassee Power Co.

200 N.C. 208 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 27, 1931

domain under the chapter Eminent Domain, where in the development of electric or hydro-electric power it shall become necessary to use or occupy any public highway, or any part of the same, after obtaining the consent of the board … That the ease of Grant v. Power Co., 196 N. C., p. 617, and Colvin v. Power Co., 199 N.

Long v. . Oxford

108 N.C. 280 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1891

Proctor v. Proctor, 105 N. C., 222 ; Speer v. James, 94 N. C , 417; Smith v. Brown, 101 N. C., 347 . The answer of the devisee in the present case does not aver fraud or collusion.

Worley v. County of Johnston

231 N.C. 592 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 22, 1950

In the original resolution of the Board of County Commissioners submitting to popular vote the question of issuing bonds and levying taxes for a county hospital the word buildings was used, indicating it was contemplated … This conclusion on the facts here presented is supported by the recent decision of this Court in Atkins v. McAden, 229 N.C. 752 , 57 S.E. 2d 484 . In view of later enactments, the decision in Denny v.

Barkley v. South Atlantic Waste Co.

149 N.C. 287 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 2, 1908

Justice Brown on the former hearing of the case. 147 N. C., 586 . … evidence that the defendant delegated the performance of this duty to Michael and, therefore, whatever place in its service Michael filled, the defendant is responsible for the manner in which he discharged this duty Tanner v.

Rothchild v. . McNichol

121 N.C. 284 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1897

Burrell v. Hughes, 120 N. C., 277 , and cases cited; Brown v. House, 119 N. C., 622 ; Parker v. Railroad, at this term. … Smith v. Montague, at this term; Triplett v. Foster, 113 N. C., 389 . Indeed, if the cause was tried below since this Term began, it can be docketed regularly at next Term. Motion denied.

Moye v. . McLawhorn

208 N.C. 812 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 20, 1935

In Manuel v. The Board of Commissioners of Cumberland County, 98 N. C., 9 , 3 S. … In Templeton v. Beard, 159 N. C., 63 , 74 S. E., 735 , a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint was affirmed.

Headen v. . Womack

88 N.C. 468 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1883

Hamlin v. Mebane, 1 Jones’ Eq., 18; Hodges v. Council, 86 N. C., 181 . … Brown v. Becknall, 5 Jones’ Eq., 423.

Peele v. . White

74 N.C. 480 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1876

The charge of his Honor is in conformity to the doctrine announced in Hauser v. Sain, at this term. … will gives the land to his daughter, the wife of plaintiff; no time is fixed during which the plaintiff was to board the testator for the use of the farm.

Gulledge v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.

147 N.C. 234 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 1, 1908

Brown, J. The defendant moved to dismiss the action because the evidence of plaintiff disclosed that the action had not been commenced within one year from the death of plaintiff’s intestate. … Roberts v. Insurance *236 Co., 118 N. C., 434 ; Tayloe v. Parker, 137 N. C., 418 . The present statute in respect to usury is different and creates a statute of limitation.

Noah v. . R. R. Reynolds v. . R. R.

229 N.C. 176 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 4, 1948

The objection to this instruction is, that it omits the essential elements of concurring negligence, as pointed out in Brown v. Montgomery Ward , 217 N.C. 368 , 8 S.E.2d 199 , and Wright v. … Tyson v. Ford , 228 N.C. 778 , 47 S.E.2d 251 . It is enough if it contribute to the injury as a proximate cause, or one of them. Godwin v. R. R. , 220 N.C. 281 , 17 S.E.2d 137 .

State v. . Casey

204 N.C. 411 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 22, 1933

S. v. Credle, 91 N. C., 648 ; S. v. Wilkerson, 98 N. C., 696 ; 1 Greenleaf Ev., sec. 89 and cases cited.” … Pollock v. Wilcox, 68 N. C., 47 ; Carden v. McConnell, 116 N. C., 875 ; Ledford v. Emerson, 138 N. C., 502 ; Hall v. Griessell, 179 N. C., 657 ; Miles v. Walker, 179 N. C., 479 ; Wigmore on Evidence, 2d ed., sec. 1253.

Luther v. . Luther

157 N.C. 499 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 20, 1911

v. … Roseman v. Roseman, 127 N. C., 498.

Perry v. . Tupper

77 N.C. 413 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1877

In Armfield v. Brown, 70 N.

Hyatt v. . McCoy

194 N.C. 760 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 21, 1927

Benton v. R. R. , 122 N.C. 1008 ; Burn v. R. R. , 125 N.C. 304 ; Gray v. Little , 127 N.C. 304 ; Phillips v. Telegraph Co. , 130 N.C. 513 ; Abernethy v. Yount , 138 N.C. 337 ; Boney v. R. R. , 145 N.C. 248 ; Billings v. … Many of the authorities sustaining this position have been collected and cited in the note to Tunnel Co. v. Cooper , 39 L.R.A. (N.S.), 1064. See, also, Harvey v. R. R. , 153 N.C. 567 . In Brown v.

State v. Freeman

307 N.C. 357 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 11, 1983

Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 604 , 45 L.Ed. 2d 416, 427 , 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2262 (1975). “Indeed, if the Fifth Amendment has been violated, the Fourth Amendment issue would not have to be reached.” Dunaway v. … Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603 , *365 45 L.Ed. 2d 416, 427 , 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2261 (1975).

Wingo v. . Hooper

98 N.C. 482 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1887

In Roulhac v. Brown, 87 N. … Counsel for the defendant relied upon Claflin & Co. v. Underwood, 75 N. C., 485 .

State v. Mosley

212 N.C. 766 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1938

Motion of tbe State to remand tbe cause for correction of tbe record will be allowed in accordance with S. v. Brown, 203 N. C., 513 , 166 S. E., 396 . Remanded.

Fields v. Tompkins-Johnston Plumbing Co.

224 N.C. 841 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 3, 1945

Lockey v. Cohen, Goldman Co., 213 N. 0., 356, 196 S. E., 342 ; Miskowiak v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 156 Md., 690 ,- 145 Atl., 199 ; Kripplaben v. Iron <& Steel Co., 227 Mo. App., 161 , 50 S. W. (2d), 752 ; 25 Cornell L. … Brown v. Aluminum Co., ante, 766; Hegler v. Cannon Mills, ante, 669. Where the record supports the fact-finding body, its determinations are not subject to review by the Superior Court or this Court. Kearns v.

Lang v. . Development Co.

169 N.C. 661 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 20, 1915

S. v. Haynie, ante , 277; Commissioners v. Bonner , 153 N.C. pp. 66-71 ; Brown v. Power Co. , 140 N.C. p. 333 ; S. v. Lyle , 100 N.C. p. 497 . … In his well prepared and thoughtful argument before us we were referred, by counsel for the appellee to the case, among others, of Brown v.