Case law

Brown v. . Brooks

52 N.C. 93 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1859

Brown v. . Electric Co.

138 N.C. 533 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 6, 1905

Story v. N. Y. Elec. R. R., 90 N. Y., 122 ; White v. Railroad, 113 N. C., 610 ; Phillips v. Telegraph Co., 130 N. C., 513 ; Hodges v. Tel. Co., 133 N. C., 225 . … While it is held in Tate v.

Brown v. Bass

261 N.C. 739 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 29, 1964

Sasser v. Lumber Company, 165 N.C. 242 , 81 S.E. 320 ; Holton v. Moore, 165 N.C. 549 , 81 S.E. 779 ; Oates v. Herrin, 197 N.C. 171 , 148 S.E. 30 ; McKoy v. Craven, 198 N.C. 780 , 153 S.E. 412 ; Allen v. … Yarborough, 201 N.C. 568 , 160 S.E. 833 ; Crane v. Carswell, 203 N.C. 555 , 166 S.E. 746 ; Bullard v. Ross, 205 N.C. 495 , 171 S.E. 789 ; Butler v. Gantt, 220 N.C. 711 , 18 S.E. 2d 119 ; Swann v.

Brown Ex Rel. Brown v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.

241 N.C. 666 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 23, 1955

Moreover, tbe policy provides in paragraph V as to “Use of other automobiles.” … statute is applicable to a policy of insurance, provisions of the statute enter into and form a part of the policy to tbe same extent as if they were actually written in it,” so wrote Ervin, J., in the recent case of Howell v.

Noland v. Brown

258 N.C. 778 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 27, 1963

Gales v. Smith, 249 N.C. 263 , 106 S.E. 2d 164 ; Robbins v. Trading Post, Inc., 251 N.C. 663 , 111 S.E. 2d 884 . … Seed Co. v. Jennette Bros. Co., 195 N.C. 173 , 141 S.E. 542 ; Barron v. Cain, 216 N.C. 282 , 4 S.E. 2d 618 . Proof of both is lacking.

State v. Brown

318 N.C. 509 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 4, 1986

Brown v. . King

107 N.C. 313 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1890

Ruffin v. Overby, 105 N. C., 78 ; McLean v. Smith, 106 N. C., 173 ; Mobley v. Griffin, 104 N. C., 112 ; Davis v. Stroud, 104 N. … Davis v. Stroud, supra; Gilliam v. Bird, 8 Ired., 285 .

State v. . Brown

7 N.C. 224 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 5, 1819

Brown v. . Jackson

179 N.C. 363 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 31, 1920

We agree with the learned counsel that the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company of Virginia is a corporation of the State of North Carolina, and that it was so decided in Staton v. R. … R. v. Spencer , 166 N.C. 522 .

Brown v. . Owens

181 N.C. 18 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 23, 1921

Perkins, 9 Pick., 305 ; Bryant v. Lord, 19 Minn., 396 ( Gil., 342 ); Moore v. Locomotive Works, 14 Mich., 266 ; Goebel v. Linn, 47 Mich., 489 ; 11 N. W., 284 ; Rogers v. Rogers, 139 Mass., 440 ; 1 N. E., 122 ; King v. … Cooke v. Murphy, 70 Ill., 96 .

Brown v. Rhinehart Bros.

112 N.C. 772 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1893

Rankin v. Allison , 64 N.C. 673 ; Bank v. Frankford , 61 N.C. 199 . … Garrett v. Trotter , 65 N.C. 430 ; The Code, sec. 273.

Brown v. Constant Gray

51 N.C. 103 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1858

The class of cases, Mellish v. Matteux, Peake N. P. 115; Baglehole v. Watters, 3rd Camp. Rep. 154; Pinckering v. Dawson, 4th *106 Taunt. 779, &c., where the property was sold “ with all faults,” is not in' point. … Nor the class of cases, Laidlaw v. Organ, 2 Wheat, 178; Bench v.

Brown v. . Harding

171 N.C. 686 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 31, 1916

Brown, admr. of Richard Short, v. J. J. … *Page 765 BROWN, J., did not sit in this case. Cited: Watters v. Hedgpeth , 172 N.C. 312 (9c); Chandler v. Jones , 172 N.C. 572 (10c); Marler v. Golden , 172 N.C. 825 (6c); Kirkwood v.

Brown v. . Ice Co.

203 N.C. 97 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 29, 1932

Brown died 21 May, 1931. He had been working for the Asheville Ice Company for about twelve months prior to his death and was engaged in driving a delivery truck for delivering ice. … Brown is unknown, and that he did not suffer an injury by accident while employed by the Asheville Ice Company, causing his death, and it appearing that these findings are all negative and are dependent upon and include the

Brown v. . Beaver

48 N.C. 516 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 5, 1856

In tbe case of Harrison v. Burgess, 1 Hawks’ Rep. 384, a script was offered for probate as the holograph will of one Irvine. The caveators objected, because it was attested by one subscribing witness.

Brown & Co. v. Nimocks

124 N.C. 417 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 11, 1899

Bank v. Gilmer, 116 N. C., 684 ; S. C. , 117 N. C., 416, 426 ; Frank v. Heiner, Ibid, 79, 83; Glanton v. Jacobs, Ibid, 427; Cooper v. McKinnon, 122 N. C., 447, 449 . … The principle is so clearly stated by Chief Justice Pearson in Brannock v. Brannock, 32 N. C., 428 , that our own views can best be given by a full citation.

State v. Brown

285 N.C. 87 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 12, 1974

Blair v. . Brown

116 N.C. 632 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1895

BROWN." … The doctrine laid down in Stone v. Marshall , 52 N.C. 300 , was overruled by Morris v. Pearson , 79 N.C. 253 . There is error also in his Honor's having given number 11 of plaintiff's prayer for instruction.

Grimes v. . Brown

113 N.C. 154 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1893

Brown and the plaintiff, growing out of their copartnership dealings. … It is not unlike the reference in Gudger v. Baird, 66 N. C., 438 , in which the order is in these words: “ This case is referred to W. M.

Brown v. . Cooper

85 N.C. 477 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 5, 1881

McKee v. Lineberger, 69 N. C., 217 .