Case law

State v. . Hamby

126 N.C. 1066 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 10, 1900

This follows the language of the statute, The Code, see. 1005; State v. McManus, 89 N. C., 555 ; State v. Brown, 125 N. C., 704 . … State v. Apple, 121 N. C., 584 ; State v. Haynie, 118 N. C., 1265 ; State v. Miller, 94 N. C., 904 ; State v. Pettie, 80 N. C., 367 .

Martin v. Martin.

130 N.C. 27 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 4, 1902

The complaint sets out no ground for an absolute divorce, and is insufficient as a complaint for divorce from bed and board in that it does not specifically state the circumstances of the alleged acts of cruelty, give time … O'Connor v. O’Connor, 109 N. C., 139 ; Jackson v. Jackson, 105 N. C., 433 ; White v. White, 84 N. C., 340 ; McQueen v. McQueen, 82 N. C., 471 . And such defective complaint can not be cured by verdict. Ladd v.

State v. Greene

298 N.C. 268 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 3, 1979

Mortgage Co. v. Real Estate, Inc., 297 N.C. 696 , 256 S.E. 2d 688 (1979); Townsend v. Railway Co., 296 N.C. 246 , 249 S.E. 2d 801 (1978); Sharpe v. Pugh, 286 N.C. 209 , 209 S.E. 2d 456 (1974); State v. … Smith, 243 N.C. 172 , 90 S.E. 2d 328 (1955); James v. Rogers, 231 N.C. 668 , 58 S.E. 2d 640 (1950); Parsons v. Board of Education, 200 N.C. 88 , 156 S.E. 244 (1930); Hillsboro v.

Garland v. . Arrowood

177 N.C. 371 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 29, 1919

Black v. Saunders, 46 N. C., 67 ; Aman v. Walker, 165 N. C., 224 ; Michael v. Moore, 157 N. C., 462 . … Brown v. Mitchell, 102 N. C., 347 , 369; Tredwell v. Graham, 88 N. C., 208 ; Cook v. Guirkin, 119 N. C., 13 ; Aman v.

In re J.E.B.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 2021

Town of Pinebluff v. Moore Cnty., 374 N.C. 254, 255–56, 839 S.E.2d 833, 834 (2020) (citing Applewood Props., LLC v. New S. … In understanding a court’s proper role in the accurate interpretation of our Legislature’s statutory enactments, this Court stated in its decision in Brown v.

Mauney v. . Norvell

179 N.C. 628 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 2, 1920

omitted the words (which are in the English statute, and which are retained in ours) “from the making thereof,” but the Court of Appeals reversed this, and held that the limitation still ran from the making of a lease.., Browne … Vanderford v. Foreman, supra, is very much in point, and is cited Product Co. v. Dunn, 142 N. C., 274 . Tbe same section, Rev., 976, makes all contracts to sell or convey any land void unless in writing.

Lewark v. Railroad

137 N.C. 383 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 21, 1905

Brown, J. On November 14, 1902, the plaintiffs had shipped from Norfolk, Va., to themselves at Church Island, N. 0., two tons of ice over the defendant’s line. … In the well-known case of Hadley v.

Mealor v. Kimble

6 N.C. 272 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 15, 1813

But it is said a trustee shall not become a purchaser» and the case^ of (Fox v. Mockroth, 2 Brown Ch. Rep. 400, Forbes v. Ross, Ibid. 430— Whichcote v. Lawrence, 3 Vesey jun. 740, and Campbell v. Walker, 5. … In thé pase of Forbes v.

State v. Overman

257 N.C. 464 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 15, 1962

State v. Ray, 229 N.C. 40 , 47 S.E. 2d 494 . … State v. Brown, 226 N.C. 681 , 40 S.E. 2d 34 . The State could not assume any one of the foregoing facts.

Leaksville-Spray Institute v. Mebane

165 N.C. 644 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 27, 1914

AlleN, I., after stating the case: The authorities fully support the charge of his Honor: Brown v. Ray, 32 N. C., 13 ; Faust v. Faust, 144 N. C., 386 ; Kirkman v. Hodgin, 151 N. C., 591 . … In Hamer v. Sidway, 124 N. Y., 538 (21 A. S.

Hice v. Hi-Mil, Inc.

301 N.C. 647 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 6, 1981

Isley v. Brown, 253 N.C. 791 , 117 S.E. 2d 821 (1961); Insurance Co. v. Lambeth, 250 N.C. 1 , 108 S.E. 2d 36 (1959); Perkins v. Perkins, 249 N.C. 152 , 105 S.E. 2d 663 (1958); Hege v. … Williamson v. Rabon, 177 N.C. 302, 306 , 98 S.E. 830, 832 (1919); accord, Isley v. Brown, 253 N.C. at 793 , 117 S.E. 2d at 823 .

Safrit v. Costlow

270 N.C. 680 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 20, 1967

Hospital v. Wilmington, 235 N.C. 597 , 70 S.E. 2d 833 , and cases cited; St. George v. Hanson, 239 N.C. 259 , 78 S.E. 2d 885 , and cases cited; Young v. Roberts, 252 N.C. 9 , 112 S.E. 2d 758 . … The function of a writ of mandamus, “when issued to compel a board or public official to perform a duty imposed by law,” is iden *685 tical with that of a mandatory injunction. Hospital v. Wilmington, supra.

Dubose v. Harpe

239 N.C. 672 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 17, 1954

v. … Powell v. Hill, 64 N.C. 169 . See also Blakely v. Patrick, 67 N.C. 40 ; Ins. Co. v. Davis, 68 N.C. 17 ; Grim v. Wicker, 80 N.C. 343 ; Strauss v. Crawford, 89 N.C. 149 ; Shearin v. Riggsbee, 97 N.C. 216 , 1 S.E. 770 .

Rogers v. . Jones

172 N.C. 156 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 4, 1916

Ed. to Thompson v. R. R., 147 N. C., 412 , especially Barringer v. Deal, 164 N. C., 249 , and cases cited, and Porter v. Lumber Co., 164 N. … This is familiar law, and it is clearly so stated by Brown, J., Fortune v. Hunt, 149 N. C., 362 , citing numerous cases. No error.

Jackson v. Royall & Borden Manufacturing Co.

195 N.C. 18 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 31, 1928

Hoke, J., in Howard v. Oil Co., 174 N. C., 651 . … J., in Holton v. Lumber Co., 152 N. C., 68 .

Gardner v. . Pike

56 N.C. 306 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1857

A similar question to that now under consideration, was presented in the case of Miller v. Cherry, ante 23. … Brown, Jesse Thorn-berg, John Branson, and A. S. Horney ; it is a debt made to raise money for the said company; and the makers made it for the sole and exclusive use of the said company.

Walker v. Walker

224 N.C. 751 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 13, 1944

See Setzer v. Setzer, 129 N. O., 296, 40 S. E., 62 ; Sanders v. Sanders, 167 N. C., 317 , 83 S. E., 489 ; Story v. Story, 221 N. C., 114 , 19 S. E. (2d), 136 . … Setzer v. Setzer, supra; Sanders v. Sanders, supra; and Story v. Story, supra. The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration, or, as stated In re Lewis, 88 N.

Burgess v. . Lovengood

55 N.C. 455 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 5, 1856

In Evans v. … The cases of Fentress v. Robbins , 4 N.C. 177 , Peagram v. King , 2 Hawks. Rep. 295, Ibid. 605. Deaver v. Erwin , 42 N.C. 250 , Dyche v.

Dellinger v. Lincoln County

369 N.C. 190 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 8, 2016

State v. Weaver

306 N.C. 629 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 5, 1982

Defendant made three phone calls, one of which was to Cassandra’s aunt, Martha Brown, who came to the doughnut shop to pick up Cassandra. … In Shankle v.