Case law

Parker v. . McPhail

112 N.C. 502 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1893

It would be perfectly regular to move to vacate before the Clerk and appeal from his ruling to the Judge, as was done in Roulhac v. Brown, 87 N. C., 1 . … Harris v. Sneeden, 101 N. C., 273 ; Millhiser v. Balsley, 106 N. C., 433 ; Travers v. Deaton, 107 N. C., 500 .

Herbert v. Union Development Co.

170 N.C. 622 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 12, 1916

Tbe case of Morehead v. Hall, 132 N. … In tbe subsequent case of Brown v. Hutchinson, 155 N. C., 208 , it was held tbat a plaintiff may register bis title after tbe commencement of the action, and tbe case of Morehead v.

Grandin v. . Triplett

173 N.C. 732 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 23, 1917

C., pp. 218-224; Maddox v. R. R., 115 N. C., 642 ; Hodges v. Spicer, 79 N. C., 223 ; McConnell v. McConnell, 73 N. C., 338 ; Cowan v. Tucker, 30 N. C., 426 . … In Shelton's case the declarations were admitted because the question involved concerned the validity of a will, and Associate Justice Brown; distinguishing between a deed and a will, said: “Declarations of this kind (by

Barco v. . Owens

212 N.C. 30 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 22, 1937

Williams v. Sealy, 201 N. C., 372 , 160 S. E., 452 ; Schwren v. Falls, 170 N. C., 251 , 87 S. E., 49 ; Hambright v. Carroll, 204 N. C., 496 , 168 S. E., 817 ; Combs v. Paul, 191 N. C., 789 , 133 S. E., 93 ; Barbee v. … Compare Jolley v. Humphries, 204 N. C., 672 , 167 S. E., 417 . The absolute devise is permitted to stand, while the subsequent clause is generally regarded as precatory only. Brown v. Lewis, 197 N. C., 704 , 150 S.

Jones v. Siler City Mills, Inc.

250 N.C. 527 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 12, 1959

Poovey v. Sugar Co., 191 N.C. 722 , 133 S.E. 12 , and cases cited therein; Swift & Co. v. Aydlett, 192 N.C. 330 , 135 S.E. 141 ; Keith v. Gregg, 210 N.C. 802 , 188 S.E. 849 . … There is no doubt whatsoever ¡but that the feeding of niearb at that level would change the color of the eggs from brown *532 to white.”

Hinson v. . Adrian

91 N.C. 372 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 5, 1884

Isler v. Brown, 69 N. C., 125 .

Hardy Ex Rel. Hardy v. Beaufort County Bd. of Educ.

702 S.E.2d 59 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 8, 2010

702 S.E.2d 59 (2010) Jessica HARDY, a minor, by and through her parent, Gail HARDY v. BEAUFORT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; Jeffrey Moss, Superintendent, Beaufort County Schools, in his official capacity. No. 481A09. … Schafer, General Counsel, Raleigh, for North Carolina School Boards Association, amicus curiae. PER CURIAM. For the reasons stated in King v. Beaufort Cty.

Dawson v. . Ennett

151 N.C. 543 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 23, 1909

Harrell v. Hagan, 147 N. C., 111 ; Sessoms v. Sessoms, 144 N. C., 121 ; Whitfield v. Garris, 134 N. C., 24 ; Wright v. Brown, 116 N. C., 26 ; Buchanan v. Buchanan, 99 N. C., 308 ; Smith v. Brisson, 90 N. … C., 284 ; Gibson v. Gibson, 49 N. C., 425 . In the more recent case of Harrell v.

Williamson v. . Rabon

177 N.C. 303 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 15, 1919

White , 128 N.C. 43 , and the same principle (305) is declared in different language in Kelly v. Bryan , 41 N.C. 286 ; Brown v. Carson , 45 N.C. 272 ; Briant v. Corpening , 62 N.C. 325 ; Edgerton v. … Brown , 253 N.C. 793 . (308)

Lyles v. Carbonating Co.

140 N.C. 25 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 22, 1905

Brown, J. … Labatt Master & Servant, section 834; Womble v. Grocery Co., 135 N. C., 481 ; Stewart v. Carpet Co., 138 N. C., 67 . In the latter case Mr.

Home Building, Inc. v. . Nash

200 N.C. 430 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 11, 1931

Rose v. Davis, 188 N. C., 355 . Such contract price is not deemed by the law to be a trust fund until notice has been given to the owner. Foundry Co. v. Aluminum, Co 172 N. C., 704. … And if not sufficient to fix liability upon the defendant Dixson, it necessarily follows that it was not sufficient to fix liability upon the Brown-Rogers-Dixson Company upon the evidence offered at the trial.

Worth v. . Northam

26 N.C. 102 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1843

Brown v Sax, 7 Cowen, 59 Betls v Love, 5 John. 384 , Curtis v Grant, 6 John. 169 . Babcock v Gill, 10 John. 287 . Vin. ab. title Property, E. plea. 5. Per Curiam, Judgment affirmed.

Deese v. . Deese

176 N.C. 527 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 27, 1918

In Speas v. Woodhouse, 162 N. C., 69 , the same ruling was made by Hoke, J., quoting from Brown, J., in Sprinkle v. Spainhour, supra, as above set out. … Sprinkle v. Spainhour, supra, and Speas v. Woodhouse, supra.

Reid v. Southern Railway Co.

153 N.C. 490 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 30, 1910

BROWN, J., dissenting; WALKER, J., concurring in dissenting opinion. … In Twitty v. R. R. , 141 N.C. 355 , Brown, J. , says: "The fact that the agent did not know the freight rates is no excuse. It is his duty to know them.

Cherry v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

186 N.C. 263 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 17, 1923

Cherry v. R. R., 185 N. C., 90 -92. … Paul v. Burton, 180 N. C., 45 , citing Bernhardt v. Brown, 118 N. C., 700 ; Lowe v. Elliott, 107 N. C., 718 ; C. S., sec. 590, subsec. 2, and other cases.

Clark v. . Hay

98 N.C. 421 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1887

Were family supplies procured to keep up a boarding-house, from which the family derived their support, embraced in the words quoted ? … The subject is discussed by RuffiN, J., in Dougherty v. Sprinkle, 88 N. C., 300 . See also Webster v. Laws, 89 N. C., 225 , and State v. Lanier, Ibid., 517.

Dismukes v. . Wright

20 N.C. 346 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1838

Chapman v. Brown , 3 Bur. Rep., 1627 ; 3 Atk., 136; Andrew v. Ward , *Page 278 1 Russ. Rep., 260, 279. … Cited: Scull v. Pruden , 92 N.C. 173 ; Lowdermilk v. Bostick , 98 N.C. 303 . (349)

Moore County v. . Burns

224 N.C. 700 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 29, 1944

E. (2d), 706 ; Vollers Co. v. Todd, 212 N. C., 677 , 194 S. E., 84 ; Smith v. Land Bank, 213 N. C., 343 , 196 S. E., 481 ; Lucas v. Bank, 206 N. C., 909 , 174 S. E., 301 ; Ellis v. Brown, 217 N. C., 787 , 9 S. … E. (2d), 467 ; Sasser v. Bullard, 199 N. C., 562 , 155 S. E., 248 ; Shuford v. Yarborough, supra; Bank v. Angelo, 193 N. C., 576 , 137 S. E., 705 ; Rose v. Warehouse Co., 182 N. C., 107 , 108 S. E., 389 ; Taylor v. Ins.

Warren v. . State

199 N.C. 211 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 2, 1930

IY), it may be conceded that the facts are as alleged in the petition, to wit: (1) That claimant performed services for the State Board of Elections, as alleged in the petition; (2) that said services were performed pursuant … Lacy v. State, 195 N. C., 284 , 141 S. E., 886 , and cases cited and reviewed in the opinion of the Court.

Small v. Councilman of Edenton

146 N.C. 527 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 19, 1908

The ordinance was within the powers • of the governing board of the town, and was properly held by his Honor to be reasonable. … In Barnes v. District of Columbia, 91 U.