Case law

Guthrie v. City of Durham

168 N.C. 573 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 7, 1915

Aiken v. Mfg. Co. , 141 N.C. 339 . But in this (575) case, if there should be a recovery against the defendant the city of Durham, A. E. Lloyd would be liable to the city, and it could recover in an action against him. … Dillon v. Raleigh , 124 N.C. 184 ; Brown v. Louisburg , 126 N.C. 701 ; Raleigh v. R. R. , 129 N.C. 265 ; Gregg v. Wilmington , 155 N.C. 18 . The discussion in Gregg v.

Henry v. . Hilliard

120 N.C. 479 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1897

So, we have the state of things so graphically described in Roulhac v. Brown, 87 N. C., 1 . … Roulhac v. Brown, supra; Wilson v. Lineberger, 82 N. C., 412 ; Jones v. Thorne, 80 N. C., 72 . From the facts found by Judge Timberlake, the movers had no case and they abandoned their appeal.

State v. . Christmas

101 N.C. 749 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1888

State v. Brown, 2 Winston, 54; State v. Fore, 1 Ired., 378 ; State v. Tytus, 98 N. C., 705 . The exception to the refusal of the Court to exclude the testimony of Mrs. … State v. White, 89 N. C., 462 , and cases there cited. Counsel relies upon The State v. Wilkerson, 72 N. C., 376 .

State v. . Redman

217 N.C. 483 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 1, 1940

Royal v. Dodd, 177 N. C., 206 , 98 S. E., 599 ; S. v. Lance, 149 N. C., 551 ; S. v. Davis, 134 N. C., 633 ; S. v. Tyson, 133 N. C., 692 ; S. v. Brown, 100 N. C., 519 . … S. v. Lance, supra.

Penland v. . Gowan

229 N.C. 449 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 10, 1948

For that reason, the appeal is dismissed on authority of Eller v. Wall, ante, 359, and the cases there cited. Appeal dismissed.

Crowell v. Crowell

180 N.C. 516 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 8, 1920

Graves v. Howard, 159 N. C., 598 . … Brown v. Brown, Anno. Cases, 1915, D (Conn.), and Feidler v. Feidler, 42 Okla., 124 , are direct authorities for the position herein stated, and in Thompson v. Thompson, 218 U.

Savannah Sugar Refining Co. v. Royal Crown Bottling Co. of Wilmington, Inc.

259 N.C. 103 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 20, 1963

“In Brinkerhof v. Brown, 6 John., ch. 139, Chancellor Kent ruled that different creditors might unite in one bill, the o-bj ect of which was to set aside a fraudulent -conveyance of their common debtor. … It was so 'held also, in McDurmut v. Strong, 4 John., ch. 687; Emerton v. Lyde, 1 Paige, 637 , and Conro v. Iron Co., 12 Barb. 27 , and by this Court in Wall v. Fairley, 73 N.C. 464 .

Standard Fashion Co. v. Grant

165 N.C. 453 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 29, 1914

BROWN, J. … Culp v. Love, 127 N. C., 461 . Tbe subject is also discussed, and many other authorities cited, in Bluthenthal v. Kennedy, ante, 372.

Williams v. . Smith

57 N.C. 254 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1858

Brown v. Wilson, 6 Ired. Eq. 558 ; Braswell v. Morehead, Busbee’s Eq. 26.

Reed v. . Lavender Bros.

206 N.C. 898 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 28, 1934

Code, sec. 8081 (ppp); Clark v. Woolen Mills, 204 N. C., 529 , 168 S. E., 816 ; Massey v. Board of Education, 204 N. C., 193 , 167 S. E., 695 ; Kenan v. Motor Co., 203 N. C., 108 , 164 S. E., 729 . … Ussery v. Cotton Mills, 201 N. C., 688 , 161 S. E., 307 . Affirmed.

Fisher v. Melton

326 N.C. 797 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 13, 1990

MELTON v. LILLIE P. MELTON; GRACE P. MILLAR, Executrix Of The Estate of Dorothy Melton; JOE H. MELTON, NORMA M. CALHOUN, PEGGY MELTON; ALICE M. SHEARIN; OLA M. BOSEMAN; LINDA M. ELLEN; THOMAS I. HUTCHINSON; JAMES B. … BASS; CAROLYN BASS BROWN; VIRGINIA D. BASS; PATTIE LOU SMITH; BARBARA F. COLLINS, Executrix Of The Estate of Lucinda D. Fulghum; HAZEL MELTON; JACQUELINE S. BAILEY, RONALD ELLIS SMITH; WILL H.

Sale v. State Highway & Public Works Commission

238 N.C. 599 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 25, 1953

Latham v. State Highway Comm., 191 N.C. 141 , 131 S.E. 385 ; Moore v. Clark, supra. The identical contracts offered in evidence in this case by the petitioners were before this Court in Brown v. … In that case Brown and wife trading as Rock Wool Insulating Company sought to recover damages for the loss by fire of goods stored in the warehouse referred to in this case.

Eller v. . Fletcher

227 N.C. 345 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 16, 1947

E. (2d), 906 . *347 It was said in White v. Pleasants, 225 N. C., 760 , 36 S. … Crowell v. Parker, 171 N. C., 392 , 88 S. E., 497 ; House v. Abell, 182 N. C., 619 (628), 109 S. E., 877 ; Harrison v. Brown, 222 N. C., 610 , 24 S. E. (2d), 470 ; 8 Am.

Gales v. Smith

251 N.C. 692 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 14, 1960

See Sawyer v. Cox, 215 N.C. 241 , 1 S.E. 2d 562 . Directly in point, however, is Hendrickson v. Mere dith, 161 Va. 193 , 170 S.E. 602 ; Kearns v. Andree, 107 Conn. 181 , 193 A. 695 ; Brown v. … Woodbury, 183 Mass. 279 , 67 N.E. 327 ; Warren v. Interstate Realty Co., 192 Ill. App. 438 ; Cohen v. Stein, 61 Wis. 508 , 21 N.W. 514 ; Kirkpatrick v. Jackson, 256 Wis. 208 , 40 N.W. 2d 372 ; *694 Roske v.

McCormick v. . Nixon

83 N.C. 113 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1880

Nixon and his co-defendants, alleged to consist in the entering upon and the building of a cabin on said-land and in the cutting down and splitting into boards and rails of one hundred timber trees. … Williams, 1 Jones Eq., 176 , and Gause v. Perkins, 3 Jones Eq., 177 .

Morris v. Liverpool, London & Globe Insurance

131 N.C. 212 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 28, 1902

Wyche v. Ross, 119 N. C., 174 ; Cowles v. Cowles, 121 N. C., 272 . The discretionary power only exists when excusable neglect has been shown. Stith v. Jones, 119 N. C., at page 341 ; Brown v. Hale, 93 N. … In DePriest v. Patterson, 85 N.

Hood, Comr. of Banks v. . Richardson

208 N.C. 321 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 26, 1935

Wright v. Ankeny, 217 Fed., 985 ; Calderhead v. Downing, 103 Fed., 27 . It is between citizens of different states. Hence, the cause is removable. Timber Co., v. Ins. Co., 190 N. C., 801 , 130 S. E., 864 . … Brown v. R. R., 204 N. C., 25 , 167 S. E., 479 . Therefore, consideration of additional alleged separable controversies is pretermitted as being presently supererogatory.

Convent of the Sisters of Saint Joseph of Chestnut Hill v. City of Winston-Salem

243 N.C. 316 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 13, 1956

Culbreth v. Britt, 231 N.C. 76 , 56 S.E. 2d 15 , and cases cited. See also Duke v. Campbell, 233 N.C. 262 , 63 S.E. 2d 555 ; In re Hall, 235 N.C. 697 , 71 S.E. 2d 140 , and cases cited. Also James v. … Moreover, in Cameron v.

Sherill v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

116 N.C. 655 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1895

Emry v. Railroad, 109 N. C., 589 . … That the defendant cannot by contract restrict its liability was held in Brown v. Tel. Co., 111 N. C., 187 , which is now reaffirmed.

John Horton v. . Elijah Green

66 N.C. 596 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1872

The case of Newby v. Jackson, 7 Jones, 351 , is a full' authority for the admission of this-evidence. … In the case of Baum v. Stevens, 2 Ire. 411, the late Chief Justice Ruffin, in speaking of a parol warranty, says : “We think the rule is correctly laid down by Chief Justice Taylor in the case of Erwin v.