Case law

Commissioners of Johnston County v. Lacy

174 N.C. 141 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 26, 1917

A perusal of the statute will disclose that, while the bonds of the State are to be positive obligations so far as the creditor or holder is concerned, it was clearly contemplated that the State should be ultimately reimbursed … shall contract a debt, pledge its faith, or loan its credit, nor shall any tax be levied oí collected by any officers of the same, except for the necessary expenses *147 thereof, unless by a vote of tbe majority of the qualified

Southern Public Utilities Co. v. Town of Bessemer City

173 N.C. 482 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 9, 1917

There is a contention that tbe -first contract has not been established, but only one of its terms, and it is said to be supported by 8 Enc. of Evidence, p. 359; 3 "Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 1957, and Dulin v. … Rights acquired under a contract may be abandoned or relinquished either by agreement, or conduct, or by contract clearly indicating such a purpose. Redding v. Vogt, 140 N. C., 562; Falls v. Carpenter, 21 N.

Murdock v. Ratliff

310 N.C. 652 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 30, 1984

However, in order to justify granting a motion for a directed verdict in favor of the party with the burden of proof, the evidence must so clearly establish the fact in issue that no reasonable inferences to the contrary … Billings, then qualified his tender of the Murdock complaint, after receiving the trial judge’s approval. Mr.

N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hebert

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 22, 2024

To the extent that defendant’s answer admitted or did not deny the complaint’s factual allegations, however, those facts are deemed established. … Moreover, elsewhere in the statute, the General Assembly clearly indicated when it authorized the inter-policy stacking of multiple automobile insurance policies. See N.C.G.S.

State v. . Mallard

184 N.C. 667 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 25, 1922

In each of these cases, though, there was no actual fraud established by proof, yet the action of the commissioners was such as to open the door to fraud, and for that reason the challenge to the array was allowed, and properly … This case clearly distinguishes the rule applying to the case at bar from the rule announced in Moore v. Guano Co., supra.

State v. Johnson

33 N.C. 659 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 15, 1850

The Court admit the principle, but qualify it with an exception, “but not so as to injure or impair exclusive rights, previously granted by the public. … The Court decide, that the appointment of the overseer was Void; and the opinion shows clearly why it was so.

Posey v. . Board of Education

199 N.C. 306 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 20, 1930

kindergarten schools as part of the public school system of the city of Asheville, it is manifest, we think, that it is their duty to exercise the power, in good faith, and *313 in accordancé witb tbe legislative will, clearly … If, however, an additional tax is required to maintain such kindergarten scbools, then they can be established and maintained only witb tbe approval of tbe qualified voters of tbe district, to be determined by an- election

Triplett v. . Williams

149 N.C. 394 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 9, 1908

The habendum part of a deed was originally used to determine the interest granted, or to lessen, enlarge, explain or qualify the premises, but it was not allowed to divest an estate already vested by the deed' and was held … follows: “It may be formulated as a rule, that where it is impossible to determine from the deed and surrounding circumstances that the grantor intended the habendum to control, the granting words will govern, but if it clearly

Charlotte Consolidated Construction Co. v. Brockenbrough

187 N.C. 65 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 22, 1924

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United Statés; nor shall any State deprive' any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; … This matter is clearly stated by the late Associate Justice Walker, who was always painstaking and careful, in Anderson v. Wilkins, 142 N.

State v. Williamson

333 N.C. 128 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 18, 1992

This qualified objection was contingent upon the statement being used for corroborative purposes. … These findings are clearly supported by the record, and we therefore find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion.

Gerow v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.

188 N.C. 76 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 21, 1924

brought about because the water had been allowed to get too low in the boiler, and that the appliances provided to enable an engineer to discover this were appar *78 ently in good working order, etc., tbe evidence being clearly … its terms and purpose is restricted to tbe user of the' report as evidence, and it does not seem to us tbat tbe inhibition in its effect or policy permits a construction forbidding an eye-witness, an expert and otherwise qualified

Preiss v. . Cohen

112 N.C. 278 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1893

While at the time of the execution of the deed in question it was entirely competent for a debtor to assign his property to an insolvent person who was otherwise qualified to execute the provisions of the deed of trust for … C., 182 , which was very similar to the one now before us, the principles were so clearly explained by the late Chief Justice SMITH that it is unnecessary for us here to repeat them.

McLean v. McLean

323 N.C. 543 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 8, 1988

It follows, the dissent im *547 plied, that this Court also should overrule the marital gift presumption established in McLeod. Id. at 295, 363 S.E. 2d at 102 . … If the witness is better qualified than the trier of fact to form an opinion, that witness may render an opinion regarding the subject matter. State v. Howard, 78 N.C.

Dunn v. . Hines

164 N.C. 113 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 13, 1913

The main purpose in construing a will, where there is doubt or ambiguity, is to ascertain the true intent and meaning o’f the testator, and in doing so we must be governed by the rules of law established for the purpose; … His primary intention clearly was that the land should go to his daughter and her children after his widow’s death. How will we best execute this dominant purpose?

Commissioners v. . State Treasurer

174 N.C. 142 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 26, 1917

A perusal of the statute will disclose that, while the bonds of the State are to be positive obligations so far as the creditor or holder is concerned, it was clearly contemplated that the State should be ultimately reimbursed … shall contract a debt, pledge its faith, or loan its credit, nor shall any tax be levied or collected by any officers of the same, except for the necessary expenses thereof, unless by a vote of the majority (147) of the qualified

State v. Teachey.

138 N.C. 587 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 21, 1905

These declarations were made under circumstances clearly indicating that they *594 were voluntary, and not made under duress or other improper influence. … In this case the prisoner denied the killing and undertook to establish an alibi.

State v. Goode

341 N.C. 513 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 8, 1995

Finally, once qualified, the expert’s testimony is still governed by the principles of relevancy. … Defendant argues that because this area has not been established as a scientifically reliable field, it does not qualify as an area for expert testimony. We disagree.

State v. Harris

283 N.C. 46 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 14, 1973

The trial judge permitted the State to challenge the juror, and the court sustained the challenge upon the ground that he was “not indifferent or qualified to serve . ...” … The answers elicited by the Solicitor concerning capital punishment were so unequivocal that challenge for cause was clearly proper.

Sawyer v. Roanoke Railroad & Lumber Co.

145 N.C. 24 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 11, 1907

And it is well established that tbe employees of a railroad company engaged in operating its trains are required to keep a careful and continuous outlook .along tbe track, and the company is responsible for injuries resulting … This is an admission of a distinct and separate fact relevant to the inquiry, and, though it was only a part of an entire paragraph, defendant was not required to put in qualifying or explanatory matter inserted by way of

Whitehead v. Wilmington & Weldon Railroad

87 N.C. 255 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 5, 1882

What those circumstances are, thus relied upon by the defendant, is clearly established by the findings of the judge in the court below, and (discarding all immaterial matters) may be stated to be : 1. … This, to my mind, is to allow the defendant to take advantage of its own wrong, and to establish for itself an immunity by its own persistent violation of duty.