Case law

Morris v. . Y. and B. Corporation

198 N.C. 705 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 21, 1930

That the board of directors of the Y. & B. … There need not be any formal action of the board of directors, and the ratification need not be express nor shown by vote or resolution of the board of directors. . . . (p. 3411-15).

State v. Quick

337 N.C. 359 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 29, 1994

Ed. 2d 601 , on remand, 329 N.C. 662 , 407 S.E.2d 218 (1991); State v. Brown, 315 N.C. 40, 62 , 337 S.E.2d 808, 824-25 (1985), overruled on other grounds by State v. … See State v. Brown, 315 N.C. 40 , 337 S.E.2d 808 .” Wilson, 322 N.C. at 146 , 367 S.E.2d at 606 .

Dillon v. . Wentz

227 N.C. 117 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 31, 1947

Pennie v. Reis, 132 U. S., 464 , 33 L. Ed., 426 ; Passaic Nat. Bank Trust Co. v. Eelman, 116 N. J., 279, 183 Atl., 677 ; Retirement Board of Alleghany County v. McGovern, 316 Penn., 161 , 174 A., 400 ; Griffith v. … Stevens v. Minneapolis Fire Department Relief Asso., 124 Minn., 381 , 145 Minn., 35 ; Trotzier v. McElroy, 182 Ga., 719 , 186 S. E., 817 ; Retirement Board of Alleghany County v. McGovern, supra.

Lavecchia v. North Carolina Joint Stock Land Bank of Durham

215 N.C. 73 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 1, 1939

Exum v. Bowden, 2 Ired. Eq., 281 ; Wilson v. Doster, 7 Ired. Eq., 231 ; Lemly v. Atwood, 65 N. C., 46 .” Ruffin v. Harrison, 90 N. C., 569 ; see Mfg. Co. v. Bell. 193 N. … Bank v. Liles, 197 N. C., 413 ; Lightner v. Knights of King Solomon, 199 N. C., 525 ; Shuford v. Brown, 201 N. C., 17 (24); White v. Johnson & Sons Co., 205 N. C., 773 ; R. R. v. Lassiter & Co., 207 N. C., 408 (415).

Fineberg v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

336 N.C. 315 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 5, 1994

445 S.E.2d 395 (1994) 336 N.C. 315 Irving FINEBERG v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY CO. No. 101P94. Supreme Court of North Carolina. May 5, 1994. Steven H. Klein, Raleigh, for Fineberg. R. Scott Brown, O.

Hipp v. Ferrall

173 N.C. 167 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 21, 1917

Templeton v. Beard, 159 N. C., 63 ; Baker v. State, 27 Ind., 485 . … McConnell v. Dewey, 5 Neb., 385 ; Bates v. Horner, 65 Vt., 471 , reported witb full note by tbe editor in 22 L. R. A., p. 824; S. v. Harris, 89 N. E., 169 .

State v. Wolf

230 N.C. 267 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 13, 1949

The State offered no evidence to show that the containers in which the seized liquor was held did not bear a revenue stamp of the federal government or a stamp of any of the county boards of North Carolina, which evidence … S. v. Holbrook, 228 N.C. 582 , 46 S.E. (2d) 842 , cited by the appellee, is not in point on the question raised on this appeal.

Security Finance Co. v. McGaskill

192 N.C. 557 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 17, 1926

Stubbs, 6 Watts, 48 ; Farly v. Bryant, 32 Me., 474; Coffing v. Taylor, 16 Ill., 457 ; Slafyton v. Scott, 13 Ves., 427; Alvanly v. Kinnaid, 2 Mac. & G., 7; 29 Beav., 490. To like effect are our own decisions. Hoggard v. … Brown, ante, 494; Hollingsworth v. Supreme Council, 175 N. C., 615 , at page 637 ; Colt v. Kimball, 190 N. C., 169 , and cases there cited.

Allgood v. Town of Tarboro

281 N.C. 430 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 16, 1972

G.S. 160-172; Marren v. Gamble, supra. The legislative body in this case is the Town *438 Council of Tarboro. Keiger v. Board of Adjustment, 278 N.C. 17 , 178 S.E. 2d 616 (1971). … Blades v. City of Raleigh, 280 N.C. 531 , 187 S.E. 2d 35 (1972); Allred v. City of Raleigh, 277 N.C. 530 , 178 S.E. 2d 432 (1971); Zopfi v.

Wilson v. E. H. Clement Co.

207 N.C. 541 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 1, 1935

Tbe nature of such estoppel and tbe elements thereof, as heretofore declared and applied, were stated in Franklin v. Franks, 205 N. C., 96 . Tbe Court said:. … See Lyon v. Lyon, 43 N. C., 201 ; Daniel v. Comrs., 74 N. C., 494 ; Haymore v. Comrs., 85 N. C., 268 ; Whitehurst v. Dey, 90 N. C., 542 ; Brown v. R. R., 147 N. C., 217 , 60 S. E., 985 .

Williams v. Harris.

137 N.C. 460 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 8, 1905

Brown v. Patton, 35 N. C., 446 ; King v. Wells, 94 N. C., 344 . . … The instruction here given of a proposition of law, without any evidence to support it, King v. Wells, 94 N. C., 344 , was duly excepted to and was Error.

Ward v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

226 N.C. 175 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 6, 1946

Hardie v. Telegraph Co., 190 N. C., 45 , 128 S. E., 500 , and cases there cited. There could have been no recovery for mental anguish. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Brown, 234 U. S., 542 , 58 L. … Ed., 1457 ; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Speight, 254 U. S., 17 , 65 L. Ed., 105 ; Hardie v. Western Union Telegraph Co., supra; nor could there have been any recovery of punitive damages, Aldrich v.

McKay v. . Williams

21 N.C. 398 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1836

v. … The cases of Brown v. Graves, 313; Bar-rismv. Bailie, 1 Dev. Eq. 5 v. M'Kaj, í7Jg^]^ep' proved. Whether lfonetenSt ant in common of a trust estate, can he sold deí cxecu-lion, Qu.?

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)

Penland v. Ingle.

138 N.C. 456 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 23, 1905

Brown, J. The court charged the jury that the custom may be established by the preponderance of the evidence. In this there is error. … Robinson v. S. S. Co., 75 Hun., 431 ; Robinson v. Butterworth, 80 U. S., 363 ; 29 A. & E. Enc. (2nd Ed.), p. 415.

Sehorn v. City of Charlotte

171 N.C. 540 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 17, 1916

In Foster v. Tryon, 169 N. … C., 110 , which has been approved in Brown v. Durham, 141 N. C., 252 ; Revis v. Raleigh, 150 N. C., 353 ; Johnson v. Raleigh, 156 N. C., 271 ; Bailey v. Winston, 157 N. C., 259 , and in other cases.

Standard Trust Co. v. Commercial National Bank

167 N.C. 260 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 18, 1914

In Triplett v. Foster, 115 N. … Bank v. Burgwyn, 110 N. C., 267 ; Evans v. Freeman, 142 N. C., 62 .

Horne v. . R. R.

170 N.C. 645 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 12, 1916

In McNeill v. R. … In Boney v. R.

Sowers v. . Earnhart

64 N.C. 96 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1870

By presumption of law, this note was solvable in Confederate money: Robeson v. Brown, 63 N. C. 554 . … There was opposing evidence introduced by the defendant, and this question of fact was fairly submitted by His Honor to the jury, and they gave a verdict for the plaintiff, for the amount specified in the note : See Garrett v.

Coffey v. . Shuler

112 N.C. 622 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1893

Flaum v. Wallace, 103 N. C., 296 . … Morehead v. Wriston, 73 N. C., 398; Brown on Actions, 99; Pollock on Contracts, 191.