Case law

Howell v. Standard Ice & Fuel Co.

226 N.C. 730 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 20, 1946

Archie v. Lumber Co., 222 N. C., 477 , 23 S. E. (2d), 834 ; Michaux v. Bottling Co., 205 N. C., 786 , 172 S. E., 406 . … Brown v. Aluminum Co., 224 N. C., 766 , 32 S. E. (2d), 320 . The cases cited and relied on by defendants are clearly distinguishable.

Vanderbilt Tire & Rubber Corp. v. Bowen

237 N.C. 426 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 25, 1953

Noland Co., Inc., v. Jones, 211 N.C. 462 , 190 S.E. 720 ; Brown v. Benton, 209 N.C. 285 , 183 S.E. 292 ; Beck v. Halliwell, 202 N.C. 846 , 163 S.E. 747 ; Tarkington v. Griffield, 188 N.C. 140 , 124 S.E. 129 ; Taylor v. … Lee, 187 N.C. 393 , 121 S.E. 659 ; Ford v. Moore, 175 N.C. 260 , 95 S.E. 485 ; Whitehurst v. Padgett, 157 N.C. 424 , 73 S.E. 240 ; Peele v. Powell, 156 N.C. 553 , 73 S.E. 234 ; Sheppard v.

Thomas v. Trustees of Catawba College

242 N.C. 504 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 30, 1955

of Trustees of the College, with reports to the meeting; (3) by-laws of the Board of Trustees in force during two designated years; and (4) faculty handbook for the year 1948. … The order appealed from will be vacated and set aside on authority of the decisions in Dunlap v. Guaranty & Accident Co., 202 N.C. 651 , 163 S.E. 750 , and Patterson v. R.R., 219 N.C. 23 , 12 S.E. 2d 652 .

Harvy v. . Pike

4 N.C. 519 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1817

Morse v. Slue , Ventris, 190, 238. But I am not prepared to say that the master would not be liable, even in an action founded on tort, for damage done to the goods while the pilot was on board. … The opinion of the Court in Snell v. Rich seems to be founded on the circumstance that the master was not on board when the accident happened. In Berry v.

State v. . Allen

208 N.C. 672 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 1, 1935

S. v. Williams, ante, 352; S. v. Brown, 206 N. C., 747 , 175 S. E. 116 . … S. v. Williams, supra; S. v. Johnson, 205 N. C., 610 , 172 S. E., 219 .

Surratt v. . Dennis

199 N.C. 757 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 26, 1930

Board of Health v. Lewis, 196 N. C., 641 , 146 S. E., 592 , and cases cited therein. In Clark v. Lawrence, 59 N. … This principle is approved in Board of Health v. Lewis, 196 N. C., 641 , 146 S. E., 592 .

Rose v. . Bryan

157 N.C. 173 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 27, 1911

Crummen v. Bennett, 68 N. C., 494 ; Arnold v. Estis, 92 N. C., 162 ; Rankin v. Shaw, 94 N. C., 405 ; Dortch v. Benton, 98 N. C., 190 . … This has been cited with approval, Fulp v. Brown, 153 N. C., 533 ; Davenport v. Fleming, 154 N. C., 293 .

Thompson v. Exum.

131 N.C. 111 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 7, 1902

Moore v. Eason, 33 N. C., 568 ; Brown v. Atkinson, 91 N. C., 389 . But this rule has never been extended, so far as we know, to apply to the business rules or customs of individuals. No Error.

Sasser v. Beck

259 S.E.2d 915 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 10, 1979

Bruce Hulse v. Sam BECK and wife, Mrs. Sam Beck, t/a the Princess Motel. Supreme Court of North Carolina. September 10, 1979. Duke & Brown, Hulse & Hulse, for plaintiff.

Richlands Supply Co. v. Banks

205 N.C. 343 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 1, 1933

Brock v. Franck, 194 N. C., 346 , 139 S. E., 696 ; McKinnie Bros. v. Wester, 188 N. C., 514 , 125 S. E., 1 ; Hollingsworth v. Allen, 176 N. C., 629 , 97 S. E., 625 ; Green v. Caldcleugh, 18 N. C., 320 . … Brown & M. Co. v. Gise, 14 N. M., 282, 91 Pac., 716 ; Note 14, A. L. R., 240. There was error in instructing tbe jury tbat plaintiff’s entire claim is barred by tbe tbree-year statute of limitations. New trial.

Stilley v. Goldsboro Planing Mills Co.

161 N.C. 517 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 26, 1913

Brown, J. At October Term, 1912, of Wayne Superior Court plaintiff obtained judgment in a trial before Ferguson, J., against defendant for damages on account of a personal injury. … Turner v. Davis, 132 N. C., 181 ; Chisco v. Yow, 153 N. C., 436 ; Clothing Co. v. Bagley, 147 N. C., 38 .

State v. Jones

275 N.C. 432 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 11, 1969

The legal propositions declared in State v. Cooper, supra, set forth above and applied herein, are reaffirmed. Decisions in conflict therewith, including State v. Brown, 266 N.C. 55 , 145 S.E. 2d 297 ; State v. … Stubbs, 266 N.C. 274 , 145 S.E. 2d 896 ; State v. Brown, 267 N.C. 189 , 147 S.E. 2d 916 , may not, to the extent of such conflict, be considered authoritative.

Bank of Wadesboro v. Caudle

239 N.C. 270 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 15, 1954

Ingold v. Assurance Co., 230 N.C. 142 , 52 S.E. 2d 366 ; Whichard v. Lipe, 221 N.C. 53 , 19 S.E. 2d 14 . Both are required, Maddox v. … Brown, 232 N.C. 542 , 61 S.E. 2d 613 , and each must substantially correspond with *274 the other. Wilkins v. Finance Co., 237 N.C. 396 , 75 S.E. 2d 118 .

Clinton v. . Ross

226 N.C. 682 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 20, 1946

Shortly thereafter a new board took office and the board, as newly constituted, enacted an amendment thereto which postponed the effective date thereof until 1 December, 1945. … The new board took this action for the reason that the ordinance precluded the operation of two of the three proposed warehouses and tended to destroy competition.

State v. Prevette

317 N.C. 148 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 2, 1986

State v. Brown, 315 N.C. 40, 58 , 337 S.E. 2d 808, 822 (1985). … Brown, 315 N.C. 40 , 337 S.E. 2d 808 . Premeditation means that the act was thought out beforehand for some length of time, however short. State v. Myers, 299 N.C. 671 , 263 S.E. 2d 768 (1980).

New Hanover Shingle Co. v. John L. Roper Lumber Co.

178 N.C. 221 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 8, 1919

Stat., ch. 102, sec. 60 et seq.), of which Chief Justice Ruffin makes the following summary in Avery v. Rose, 15 N. … This authority was cited and approved in Stewart v. Pergusson, 133 N. C., 281.

Causey v. Snow.

120 N.C. 279 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1897

Pate v. Brown, 85 N. C., 166 ; Jackson v. Love, 82 N. C., 405 .

High v. Ridgeway's Opticians

258 N.C. 626 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 1, 1963

The -appellant relies strongly on the decision in the case of State ex rel The Oregon State Board of Examiners in Optometry v. … Logan v. Sprinkle, 256 N.C. 41 , 123 S.E. 2d 209 , Kovacs v. Brewer, 245 N.C. 630 , 97 S.E. 2d 96 ; Travis v. Johnston, 244 N.C. 713 , 95 S.E. 2d 94 ; Burnsville v. Boone, 231 N.C. 577 , 58 S.E. 2d 351 ; Wilson v.

Kornegay v. . Price

178 N.C. 441 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 12, 1919

Templeton v. Twitty, 88 Tenn., 595 . In Vandervoort v. Gould, 36 N. Y., 639 , it is held, that the possession of premises by husband belonging to his wife can, in no sense, be deemed adverse. In the note to A. and E. … Burkowitz v. Brown, 23 N. Y. Supp., 792 . There are authorities which hold that the possession of the husband does not become adverse against the wife’s heirs until a demand is made for possession. See, also, 1st E. C.

Sparrow v. . Maynard

53 N.C. 195 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1860

For if it do not, according to the case of Brown v. Dula, 3 Murph. 574 , the plaintiff was properly nonsuited in the Court below. … This is well settled by the cases of Skinner v. White, 1 Dev. and Bat. 471, and Wall v. Hoskins, 5 Ire. 177.