Case law

State v. Robinson

342 N.C. 74 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1995

See State v. Brown, 315 N.C. 40, 67 , 337 S.E.2d 808, 827-28 (1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1164 , 90 L. Ed. 2d 333 (1986), overruled on other grounds by State v. Vandiver, 321 N.C. 570 , 364 S.E.2d 373 (1988); State v. … Brown, 315 N.C. at 67 , 337 S.E.2d at 827 .

State v. . Potter

185 N.C. 742 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 16, 1923

Tbe barrel was covered with boards and tbe boards with trash. About 500 yards from tbe defendant’s bouse were two still sites, at one of which a still bad recently been operated. … S. v. Carlson, 171 N. C., 818 ; S. v. Jenkins, 182 N. C., 818 ; S. v. Clark, 183 N. C., 733 .

Clifton v. . Wynne

80 N.C. 145 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1879

V., § 7. … In Fort v.

Drennan v. . Wilkes

179 N.C. 512 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 5, 1920

Paper Co. v. Chronicle, 115 N. C., 147 . … Redmond v. Mullenax, 113 N. C., 505 .

Winberry v. Farley Stores, Inc.

204 N.C. 79 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 25, 1933

Harden v. Furniture Co., 199 N. C., 733 ; Hunt v. State, 201 N. C., 707 ; Brown v. Ice Co., 203 N. C., 97 ; Kenan v. Motor Co., 203 N. C . v. Hines Bros., 203 N. C., 148 ; Mmiford v. Construction Co., 203 N. … C., 247 ; Richey v. Cotton Mills, 203 N. C., 595 ; Johnson v. Bagging Co., 203 N. C., 579 . In Greer v. Laundry Co., 202 N.

Myers v. City of Charlotte

146 N.C. 246 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 4, 1907

Creighton v. Water Commissioners, 143 N. C., 171 ; Brown v. Power Company, 140 N. C., 341 . No Error.

Nesbit v. . Kafer

222 N.C. 48 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 30, 1942

of drainage commissioners and by the secretary of the board.” … See Drainage Comrs. v. Farm Association, 165 N. C., 697 , 81 S. E., 947 ; Taylor v. Comrs., supra; and Pate v. Banks, supra.

Sykes v. Belk

278 N.C. 106 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 10, 1971

City of Washington, Washington County, supra; Harrison v. Board of County Commissioners, supra; Palmer v. City of Liberal, 334 Mo. 266 , 64 S.W. 2d 265 ; Bowling v. City of Bluefield, 104 W. … Nickel v. School Board of Axtell, 157 Neb. 813 , 61 N.W. 2d 556 ; Talbott v. City of Lyons, 171 Neb. 186 , 105 N.W. 2d 918 . See also 1 A.L.R. 2d 350 ; Gordon v.

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hood

206 N.C. 639 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 20, 1934

To sustain its contention it cites Winston v. Biggs, 117 N. C., 206 ; Bank v. Flippen, 158 N. C., 334 ; Milling Co. v. Stevenson, 161 N. C., 510 ; Bank v. Jarrett, 195 N. C., 798 . … . *643 In Merrill v. Bank, 173 U.

State v. . Yearby

82 N.C. 561 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1880

In the recent case of State v. Chadbourn, 80 N. C., 479 , we had occasion to examine and construe a similar provision, in the revenue act of March 10th, 1877. … The defendants in *562 that case were proprietors of a steam saw and planing mill, and their business was to buy timber, and by sawing and planing, convert it into lumber and boards which they sold in the market.

Crump v. . Morgan

38 N.C. 91 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1843

In Browning v Reane, 2 Phill. 69, Sir John Nichol said, “ the want of reason must invalidate a contract and the most important contract of life, the very essence of which is consent.” … Ridler v Ridler, 1 Eq Cas. Abr. 279; Brown v Clark, 3 Wood. Lec. 378, note, Stock on non compotes, 34. In this State we have said it was good either way. Shaw v Burney, 1 Ired. Eq. 148 .

State Ex Rel. Swann v. Martin

191 N.C. 404 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 17, 1926

Perry v. Ins. Co., 137 N. C., 404 . The principle is thus stated in Brown v. Kinsey, 81 N. … Sutton v. Madre, 47 N. C., 320 ; Liquor Co. v. Johnson, 161 N. C., 77 ; Seagrove v. Winston, 167 N. C., 207 ; S. v. Bridgers, 172 N. C., 882 ; S. v. Prince, 182 N. C., 790 .

West v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.

151 N.C. 231 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1909

Brown, J. The plaintiff, conductor on defendant’s train, was injured in a wreck which occurred at Whisnant’s trestle, on the night of 9 September, 1904. … Carr v. Holliday, 21 N. C., 344 ; Rhoades v. Fuller (Mo.), 40 S. W., 760 ; Jamison v. Culligan, 52 S. W., 225 ; Schaps v. Lehner, 35 N. W., 911 (Minn.) ; Brown v. Cory (Kan.), 59 Pac., 1097 ; Coburn v.

Tyson v. Sinclair.

138 N.C. 23 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 4, 1905

Brown, J. Tbe case turns upon tbe construction of tbe second paragraph of tbe will of Tbomas B. Tyson, to-wit, “I give and devise to my grandson, Tbomas B. … Ward v. Jones, 40 N. C., 401 .

Williams v. . Washington

16 N.C. 137 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1828

Cited: Pope v. Harris , 94 N.C. 64 ; Baker v. Brown 103 N.C. 80 . Dist.: Thompson v. Peebles , 85 N.C. 419 . *Page 93 (151)

State v. Rhinehart

322 N.C. 53 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 6, 1988

In our oft-cited decision in State v. … In the recent case of State v.

Walker v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

315 N.C. 597 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 18, 1986

WALKER v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION. No. 706P85. Supreme Court of North Carolina February 18, 1986. Badgett, Calaway, Phillips, Davis, Stephens, Peed & Brown, Winston-Salem, for plaintiff.

Scruggs v. . Rollins

207 N.C. 335 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 21, 1934

In Hermic v. Commissioners of Yadkin, 206 N. … In Castle v. Threadgill, 203 N.

National Bank of Asheville v. Bradley

117 N.C. 526 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1895

Denny v. Palmer, 27 N. C., 610 ; Tiedman Com. Paper, Sec. 336; 3 Randolph Com. Paper, Sec. 1238; 2 Daniel Neg. Inst., Sec. 995 ; Code, Sec. 42 and 49. Notice of dishonor must be given to the drawer. Brown v. … Brittain v. Johnson, 12 N. C., 293 .

Weil v. Flowers

109 N.C. 212 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 15, 1891

Woodlief v. Harris, 95 N. C., 211 ; Gwathmey v. Etheridge, 99 N. C., 571 ; State v. *217 Logan, 100 N. C., 454 ; Brown v. Miller, 108 N. C., 395 ; Rountree v. Britt, 94 N. C., 104 . … Rawlings v. Hunt, 90 N. C., 270 . The subsequent chattel mortgage to secure the note for $130 mentioned, did not have the effect to change or modify the provision for paying the note above referred to.