Case law

Bell v. . Ballance

12 N.C. 391 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1828

The qualified mode of payment being introduced for the benefit of the purchaser, w Idle the contract is executory, an action must be brought- on the special agreement; when it i« executed, an action may be brought for the … It was decided that he. could not, because the circumstances of the case show, that the seller considered himself as taking the note at his own risk, and the purchaser not endorsing it or guarantying it, clearly declined

State v. Maynard

311 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1984

The relevancy of the evidence is thereby established. The trial judge did not err in permitting Ms. Powell to testify concerning Stephen Henry’s statement to her. … Whether a defendant’s history of prior criminal activity has been significant clearly encompasses not only a quantitative but also a qualitative analysis.

Adcock v. Town of Fuquay Springs

194 N.C. 423 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 26, 1927

The General Assembly may confer upon municipal corporations the power to create debts and issue bonds for necessary expenses without the approval of a majority of the qualified voters; but when it is provided by statute or … The decision clearly sustains the contention that the election of 7 June was held within a month after the regular municipal election.

Stanmire v. . Powell

35 N.C. 313 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1852

Such an exception is an unusual thing, and not readily to be expected, and therefore it ought to appear very clearly, by unequivocal and express language, or strong inference. … Yet that would be so if the resolution extended to land in Cherokee, for, as the entry laws never extended to that county, there could be neither an entry-taker nor surveyor qualified to discharge the duties belonging to

Bryant v. Shields

220 N.C. 628 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 7, 1942

Tbe court below ruled that plaintiffs action to establish title to the lot in question could not be maintained for two reasons, (1) because the deed to J'ohn W. … E., 71 ), though tbe habendum clause may control if it clearly appears tbe grantor so intended. Seawell v. Hall, supra; 84 A. L. R., 1050.

Melchor v. . Burger

21 N.C. 634 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1837

But as a testator may qualify a bounty which he confers by any condition not contrary to law; and as a legatee in such case must take the bounty,-if he take' it at all, subject to the condition which the testator has annexed … Yet it has been uniformly held to be well established, and is recognized as a fixed rule of property in the case of Ker v. Wanehope, 1 Bligh. 23-25.

State v. Chul Yun Kim

318 N.C. 614 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 18, 1986

The question posed by the prosecutor clearly invoked Dr. Barnette’s status as an expert and sought to establish the credibility of the victim as a witness. Such evidence was inadmissible and should have been excluded. … The admission of such evidence clearly was error. State v. Heath, 316 N.C. at 341-42, 341 S.E. 2d at 569 .

State v. Withers

311 N.C. 699 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 28, 1984

The trial judge never clearly ordered the evidence stricken, nor did he instruct the jury to disregard any portion of the testimony referring to Kathryn’s characterization of the incident as an “accident.” … Finally, defendant contends that the procedure established in G.S. 15A-2000(a)(2) for “death-qualifying” a jury prior to the guilt phase of the trial and requiring the same jury to hear both the guilt and penalty phases of

State v. Monk

291 N.C. 37 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 4, 1976

This he was qualified to do. See 1 Stansbury, N.C. Evidence § 135 (Brandis Rev. 1973), and cases cited therein. … Philen was an expert in his field was clearly proper and was supported by the evidence. State v. Carey, supra. At trial, Dr.

Elliott v. Jefferson.

64 L.R.A. 135 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 20, 1903

This paragraph, taken by itself, might be capable of misconstruction from the use of the word “draughtsman,” but we think it is so qualified by the remainder of the charge as to clearly inform the jury that they must be governed … This principle is clearly recognized in the authorities cited hy the plaintiff himself, as will appear from the following extracts: In Cherry v. Slade, 7 N.

Knight v. . Leak

19 N.C. 133 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1836

last suggestions would, no doubt, have great weight in interpreting the enactments of our act of 1812, (Rev. c. 830,) in relation to the sale, under execution, of equitable interests, where the words of the statute do not clearly … It is perfectly established in this state, that a vested remainder in a slave dependent on a life estate in another, is a legal interest. We are therefore of opinion, that these interests of Mrs. *136 M'Intosh and Mrs.

Reade v. . Durham

173 N.C. 668 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 30, 1917

The General Assembly shall not pass any local, private, or special act or resolution: "Relating to the establishment of courts inferior to the Superior Court; relating to the appointment of justices of the peace; relating … But its insertion shows clearly that the convention intended that no part of the proposed Constitution should take effect until that time.

Gattis v. Kilgo.

128 N.C. 402 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 30, 1901

It is settled in this State that upon a trial in a court of law a piarty would have complete immunity under such conditions. In Shelfer v. Gooding, 47 N. … If the words of the libel are clearly malicious, that is, if they show clear evidence of actual malice on their face, they may be considered by the jury, as in the case of Ramsey v. Cheek, 109 N. C., 210 .

Sue Lee Parks Ex Rel. Garcia v. Washington

255 N.C. 478 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 11, 1961

Clearly the evidence was competent on the first issue. … His experience of more than thirty years on the bench eminently qualified him to evaluate the testimony.

Reynolds v. Lloyd Cotton Mills

177 N.C. 412 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 14, 1919

one bas actually been established, and while in transit he retains the former domicile. … fact' fixed the domicile in that county, for it clearly did not, neither under the general law nor under our statute.

Raleigh & Gaston Railroad v. Commissioners of Wake

87 N.C. 414 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 15, 1882

The valuation of the preferred or guaranteed stock : It is not our province to weigh the evidence and deduce therefrom the facts which, in our opinion, it may establish. … The sixth paragraph to which we have referred and its concluding sentence clearly indicate that this, like any other property belonging to a resident stockholder, must be listed and the tax paid by himself, and not by the

Nobles v. . Nobles

177 N.C. 243 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 28, 1919

Wright was restored and its supremacy finally established in Roddy v. … This being the established position, it is very generally held here and elsewhere that in construing a will which makes disposition of real estate to one and his legal representatives, with nothing in the instrument to qualify

State v. Strickland

321 N.C. 31 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 5, 1987

Defendant first assigns as error the trial court’s denial of his pretrial motion to prohibit the prosecutor from “death qualifying” the jury. … We hold that the evidence presented at trial does not present facts legally sufficient to establish a defense of insanity.

R. R. Co. v. . Commissioners

87 N.C. 414 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 5, 1882

The valuation of the preferred or guaranteed stock: It (422) is not our province to weigh the evidence and deduce therefrom the facts which, in our opinion, it may establish. … The sixth paragraph to which we have referred and its concluding sentence clearly indicate that this, like any other property belonging to a resident stockholder , must be listed and the tax paid by himself, and not by the

Wagner v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

147 N.C. 315 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 15, 1908

The correct construction of the statute is not clear, and in this case the questions arising upon it are not clearly presented. … If railroad companies, either for their own or for the convenience of their patrons, establish quasi depots or stopping places, they must make them safe — provide lights at night.