Case law

Cannon v. . Cannon

223 N.C. 664 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 15, 1943

Subsequently, the Central Hanover Bank Trust Company declined to qualify, and under the provisions of the will, on 16 September, 1941, plaintiffs Charles A. Cannon and David H. … Blair qualified as trustees, and as such are in the present custody and possession of the estate.

Basnight v. Dill

256 N.C. 474 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 7, 1962

The rule is clearly stated in Carroll v. … law that where an estate is given to a person generally or indefinitely with a power of disposition, or to him, his heirs and assigns forever, it carries a fee, and any limitation over or qualifying expression of less import

Carolina Helicopter Corp. v. Cutter Realty Co.

263 N.C. 139 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 16, 1964

Federal Aviation Authority, that is, blanket or qualified authority. *146 This contention is in the nature of a speaking demurrer. … The jury may find this to be true, if it also finds that there was no contract, but it is not established by the complaint as a matter of law.

State v. . Smith

157 N.C. 578 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 9, 1911

clause of a statute creating an offense is descriptive thereof, it is necessary to negative, in an indictment thereunder, the existence of the facts contained in the *583 exception, or proviso, tbongb the burden of proof to establish … “The office of a proviso generally is, either to except something from the enacting clause, to qualify *586 or restrain its generality, or to exclude some possible ground of misinterpretation of it extending to eases not

Brittain v. . Dickson

104 N.C. 547 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1889

The plaintiff was, afterwards, on the 23d day of December, 1886, appointed and qualified as administrator de ■ bonis non of the same intestate. … All this was gross neglect, and the creditor who, on that account, fails to establish his debt and have it paid, must suffer loss, and so must the heirs, if they cannot make good their defence.

State v. . Harris

216 N.C. 746 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 2, 1940

If these two acts are construed in pari materia , it leaves the combined legislation clearly open to the objection of unlawful discrimination in the respect mentioned. … If the act is defective, as we think it is, in failing to disclose a justifiable relation to a reasonably necessary public purpose, it is clearly a monopoly offensive to Art. I, sec. 31, of the Constitution.

Sims v. Charlotte Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

256 N.C. 32 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 2, 1962

In that state a statute is constitutional only to the extent that its purpose is clearly expressed in the title. … Plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to establish her right to double indemnity, but she ought not to be deprived of the right to establish that fact if she can.

State v. Cousins

289 N.C. 540 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 6, 1976

G.S. 15A-1054 contains the following provisions: (a) Whether or not a grant of immunity is conferred under this Article, a solicitor, when the interest of justice requires, may exercise his discretion not to try any suspect … It is well established that any object which has a relevant connection with a case is ordinarily admissible into evidence. State v.

State v. Wetmore

287 N.C. 344 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 6, 1975

We have carefully considered defendant’s argument that we should change our well-established rule. However, we are not persuaded to do so. See State v. Jennings, [ 276 N.C. 157 , 171 S.E. 2d 447 (1970)]; State v. … He clearly stated: “Under this charge and the evidence in this case, there are five possible verdicts that you can arrive at.

McNinch v. . Trust Co.

183 N.C. 33 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 22, 1922

Thus, the ground of equitable relief and immunity from the statute is the fraud, alleged to have been perpetrated, and not the agreement to hold in trust. Floyd v. Duffy , 68 W. Va. 339 ; 33 L.R.A. (N.S.), 883. … The authorities cited and relied upon by both sides are clearly distinguishable by reason of the underlying differences of the two positions.

Foster v. North Carolina Medical Care Commission

283 N.C. 110 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 11, 1973

It is, however, also established by these decisions that the General Assembly, having itself declared the policy to be effectuated and having established the broad framework of law within which it is to be accomplished and … The undertaking of such obligation would clearly create a debt of the lessee within the meaning of the constitutional provision, nothing else appearing.

Little v. . Fleishman

177 N.C. 22 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 3, 1919

Besides, at the time of the tender, the value of the goods and the goodwill, which clearly passed and was clearly intended by the parties to pass by the transactions to the defendants, were so impaired — and by the conduct … That no man should be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong is not only a principle of the common law, but a maxim of general jurisprudence which is well recognized and established.

State v. . Behrman

114 N.C. 797 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1894

Our statute, providing that such laws “may be proved as a fact by oral evidence” is but in affirmance' of a general principle laid down in the works on evidence (1 Greenleaf Ev., 486; 1 Wharton Ev., 303), and very clearly … does not change in the slightest degree the existing rules as to the competency of witnesses by which suchlaws are to be established.

Pharr v. . Russell

42 N.C. 222 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 5, 1851

It is admitted that the circumstances, that in' the course of the treaty an inquiry or representation Was made as to the quantity, or that the written articles or the conveyance had no terms qualifying the statement of the … These inferences from the language of the articles and the facts, found in the answer, are fortified beyond refutation by the acts of the parties under the contract, as established by the proofs.

Jones v. Home Building & Loan Ass'n of Thomasville

252 N.C. 626 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 10, 1960

Plaintiffs have no evidence tending to show a clearly defined channel containing subterranean water, the location and existence of which are known or ascertainable from surface indications. … Plaintiffs’ evidence clearly shows that the damage by water to their house was caused solely by subterranean water, and not by surface water.

Tiddy v. Graves.

127 N.C. 502 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 22, 1900

The rehearing seeks to-establish that this allegation of the husband being “entitled to an estate by the curtesy” was an allegation of fact. … They *507 are, as bas been said by this Court, precedents, and to be overruled on rebearing, like other precedents, only upon error being clearly shown.

State v. Wilson

313 N.C. 516 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 4, 1985

Phillip Leone was qualified and accepted by the court as an expert in the field of pathology. … establish these facts.

State v. Gray

292 N.C. 270 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 14, 1977

The contention is that their validity and reliability were not properly established. … It has long been established, too, that lay opinion generally is permitted in circumstances where an ordinary observer having sufficient opportunity to observe would be qualified to draw inferences helpful to the jury if

State v. Perry

250 N.C. 119 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 29, 1959

Whether the defendant can establish the alleged racial discrimination or not, due process of law demands that he have his day in court on this matter, and such day he does not have unless he has a reasonable opportunity and … The defendant’s evidence clearly -shows that for at least eight years prior to November 1958 one or two negroes have served on -practically every jury panel at terms -of Un-ion County Superior Court, and from these panels

Matter of Doe

329 N.C. 743 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1991

The onus is clearly on the DYS to alert the court whenever it finds “that any juvenile committed to [its] care is not suitable for its program.” N.C.G.S. § 7A-665 (1989). … Finally, DYS contends that the district court’s order of 19 July 1988 violates the doctrine of sovereign immunity.