Case law

J. F. White Co. v. Carroll

146 N.C. 230 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 4, 1907

Perry v. White, 111 N. C., 197 ; Brown v. Dail, 117 N. C., 41 . … Dempsey v. Rhodes, 93 N. C., 120 ; Kerchner v. Riley, 72 N. C., 171 ; McMillan v. Baker, 92 N. C., 110 ; Corn v. Stepp, 84 N. C., 599 . We do not find any inconsistency between the complaint and the reply.

Nadal v. . Britton

112 N.C. 180 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1893

Hodges v. Lassiter, 96 N. C., 351 ; Brown v. Mitchell, 102 N. C., 347 . And it was incumbent upon them to prove not only the fraudulent intent of the grantor, but also the fact that the defendant (Mrs.

United States Ex Rel. State v. Douglas

113 N.C. 190 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1893

Carson v. Dunham, 121 U. S., 421 . … In Telegraph Co. v.

Quelch v. . Futch

172 N.C. 316 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 25, 1916

A reference to another deed may control a particular description, for the deed referred to for purposes of description becomes a part of tbe deed tbat calls for it. 13 Cyc., 632; Brown v. Ricaud, 107 N. … Rutherford v. Lacy, 48 Mo., 325 ; Jackson v. Barringer, 15 Johns (N. Y.), 471; Lodge v. Lee, 6 Cranch (U. S.), 237; 13 Cyc., p. 634, note 14. Prentice v. R. R., 154 U.

Gatling v. . Commissioners of Carteret

92 N.C. 536 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1885

Cooley on Taxation, supra; Finnegan v. City of Fernandina, 15 Florida, 379 . In Battle, Treasurer, v. Thompson, 65 N. … In Rees v.

Jenette v. Hovey & Co.

182 N.C. 30 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 14, 1921

Sheldon v. Kivett, 110 N. C., 408 ; Roulhac v. Brown, 87 N. C., 1; Judd v. Mining Co., 120 N. C., 397 . … Mills v. Hansel, 168 N. C., 651 ; Armstrong v. Kinsell, 164 N. C., 125 ; Currie *33 v. Mining Co., 157 N. C., 217 ; Grocery Co. v. Bag Co., 142 N. C., 174 , and Best v. Mortgage Co., 128 N. C., 351 .

Nichols v. . Town of Fountain

165 N.C. 166 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 11, 1914

Coley v. Statesville, 121 N. C., 301 ; *169 Shields v. Durham, 116 N. C., 394 ; Moffitt v. Asheville, 103 N. C., 237 ; McIlhenny v. Wilmington, 127 N. C., 146 ; Hines v. Rocky Mount, 162 N. C., 411 . … Applying these principles, it was held by the Supreme Court of West Virginia in Brown, administrator, v. Town of Guyandotte, 12 S.

Allen v. . Hewitt

212 N.C. 367 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1937

Sessoms v. Sessoms, 144 N. C., 121 , citing Cox v. Marks, 27 N. C., 361 ; King v. Utley, 85 N. C., 59 ; Robeson v. Moore, 168 N. C., 388 ; Waller v. Brown, 197 N. C., 508 . … Jones v. Whichard, 163 N. C., 241 ; Price v. Griffin, 150 N. C., 523 ; Edgerton v. Aycock, 123 N. C., 134 ; Chamblee v. Broughton, 120 N. C., 170 ; Starnes v. Hill, 112 N. C., 1 ; Bank v. Dortch, 186 N.

Anderson v. Town of Waynesville

203 N.C. 37 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 15, 1932

McLeod v. Gooch, 162 N. C., 122 ; School v. Peirce, 163 N. C., 424 . … C., 511 , in which tbe defendants who ignored orders made by a board of commissioners undertook by force to accomplish an object which they could not attain by law.

Harris v. . Miller

208 N.C. 746 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 20, 1935

Scott v. Gillis, 197 N. C., 223 . Clark, C. J., in Peters v. Highway Commission, 184 N. C., 30 , says: “In injunction proceedings we can review the evidence.”

Green v. Greensboro Female College

83 N.C. 449 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1880

Brown Act. at Law, Law Lib. 90. … McIntyre v. Oliver, 2 Hawks, 209 ; Willis v. Hill, 2 D. & B., 231; Walton v. Robinson, 3 Ired., 341 ; Davis v.

Alley v. Charlotte Pipe & Foundry Co.

159 N.C. 327 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 8, 1912

*329 Brown, J. The plaintiff was a pipe molder for several years in defendant’s foundry. … Ives v. Lumber Co., 147 N. C., 306 . In Lamb v. Littman, 132 N. C., 978 , it is held competent to prove the reputation of a man’s special fitness for any employment in which he is engaged. R. R. v. Jewel, 46 Ill., 99 .

State ex rel. Lovingood v. Gentry

183 N.C. 825 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 2, 1922

The time for settling the taxes for 1920 was extended by the board of commissioners to the first Monday in May, 1921. … Davenport v. McKee, 98 N. C., 500 ; Williamson v. Jones, 127 N. C., 178 . On the plaintiffs’ appeal there is No error. Stacy, J., not sitting.

Smith v. . Hicks

108 N.C. 249 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1891

Armfield v. Brown , 70 N.C. 27 ; Atkinson v. Whitehead , 77 N.C. 418 ; White v. Utley , 86 N.C. 415 ; Grant v. Hughes , 96 N.C. 177 ; Nissen v. Mining Co. , 104 N.C. 309 ; Morrisey v. Swinson, ib. , 555; Battle v. … Perry v. Tupper , 77 N.C. 413 ; Fleming v. Roberts, ib. , 415; White v. Utley, supra; Patrick v. R. R. , 101 N.C. 602 ; Morrisey v. Swinson, supra .

Sims v. Gernandt

341 N.C. 162 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 28, 1995

Plaintiff relies on Travis v. … Cunningham v. Brown, 51 N.C.App. 264 , 276 S.E.2d 718 (1981).

Bailey v. Carolina Power & Light Co.

212 N.C. 768 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 2, 1938

directors of the corporation is challenged, on the principle of Gorrell v. … See Alabama Power Company v. Harold L. Idees, as Federal Hmergency Administrator of Public Works, decided at October Term, 1937, of the Supreme Court of the United States.

State's Prison v. Hoffman & Bros.

159 N.C. 564 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 30, 1912

Brown, J. In this action plaintiff seeks to recover balance due on 10,475 bushels of peanuts, sold to defendants, who pleaded a breach of contract by way of counterclaim. … Waldo v. Belcher, 33 N. C., 609 . Then plaintiff became a mere accommodation bailee without hire, and required to exercise only slight care.

State v. . Chavis

80 N.C. 353 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1879

State v. Craton, 6 Ire. 164; State v. Langford, Bush., 436; State v. Collins, 8 Ire., 407’ The second, because there is no necessity for entering a sim-iliter on the record. It may be done ore teams. State v. … State v. Rash, 12 Ire., 382; Brown v. Patton, 13 Ire., 446; State v. Peace, 1 Jones, 251 ; State v. Haney, 2 Dev. and Bat., 390. 5.

Smith v. . Hauser and Co.

206 N.C. 562 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 23, 1934

Reed v. Lavender Bros., post, 898, 172 S. E., 877 ; Chambers v. Oil Co., 199 N. C., 28 , 153 S. E., 594 . … 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 .

Thomas v. Southern Railway Co.

173 N.C. 494 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 9, 1917

In Mangum v. R. R., 145 N. C., 155 , Brown, J., said: “For tbe same reason, Muster v. R. R., 61 Wis., 325 , cited by tbe defendant, is no authority, in our opinion, to sustain its contention. … Pineus v. R. R., supra; R. R. v. Johnson, 36 Kan., 769 .” Mangum v. R. R. has been cited with approval in Roberts v. R. R., 155 N.