Case law

Albea v. Griffin

22 N.C. 10 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1838

Cited: Dunn v. Moore, 38 N.C. 367 ; Devereux v. Burgwyn, 40 N.C. 355 ; Chambers v. Massey, 42 N.C. 289 ; Plummer v. Owens, 45 N.C. 255 ; Love v. Neilson, 54 N.C. 341 ; Thomas v. Kyles, ibid., 306; Rives v. … Dudley, 56 N.C. 137 ; Capps v. Holt, 58 N.C. 155 ; Pope v. Whitehead, ibid., 199; Sain v. Dulin, 59 N.C. 197 ; Foust v. Shoffner. 62 N.C. 243 ; Barnes v. Brown, 71 N.C. 512 ; Potter v. Madre, 74 N.C. 41 ; Long v.

SJ GROVES & SONS & COMPANY v. State

302 N.C. 396 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 7, 1981

GORVES AND SONS AND COMPANY v. STATE of North Carolina and the North Carolina Board of Transportation. Supreme Court of North Carolina. April 7, 1981. Eugene A. Smith, Senior Deputy Atty. Gen., Raleigh, J.

White v. . Goodwin

174 N.C. 723 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1917

McCallum v. McCallum , 167 N.C. 310 ; Taylor v. Brown , 165 N.C. 161 ; Fellows v. Durfey 163 N.C. 305 . … The opinion of his Honor to that effect finds support in Cohoon v. Upton, supra; McSwain v. Washburn , 170 N.C. 363 ; Robeson v. *Page 779 Moore , 168 N.C. 388 ; Jones v. Wichard , 163 N.C. 241 ; Price v.

McAden v. Palmer

140 N.C. 258 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 12, 1905

*259 Brown, J. (1) The principal question appearing upon the record, which it is necessary for us to consider, is that presented by the eighth issue: “Is the defendants’ claim of equity to have the plaintiff declared trustee … Smith v. Clay, 3 Bro., *261 Ch. 640; Speidel v. Henrici, 120 U. S., 387 .

Garrett v. . White

38 N.C. 131 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1843

Avery v Rose, 4 Dev. 549 . Peiti land v Stewart, 4 Dev. & Bat. 386 . … Blynman v Brown & ux, 2 Vern. 232; Wilkin v Wilkin, 1 John. c. c. 111.

Phillips v. Hassett Mining Co.

244 N.C. 17 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 2, 1956

Spain v. Brown, 236 N.C. 355 , 72 S.E. 2d 918 . … Moses v. Morganton, 192 N.C. 102 , 133 S.E. 421 ; Lineberger v. Gastonia, supra; Stowe v. Gastonia, 231 N.C. 157 , 56 S.E. 2d 413 ; McKinney v. Deneen, supra.

Gilbert v. . James

86 N.C. 244 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1882

Williams v. Williams, 6 Ired., 281 ; Grandy v. Ferebee, 68 N. C., 356 ; Francis v. Edwards, 77 N. C., 271 . … This is the import of the cases upon this point referred to in the brief *249 of defendant’s counsel —Parish v. Fite, 2 Murph., 258 ; Kelly v. Goodbread, Term Rep., 28; State v. Rash, 12 Ired., 382 ; Brown v.

Wilkinson v. . Wilkinson

17 N.C. 376 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 5, 1833

(Brown v Selwyn, For. 240, Irnham v Child, 1 Bra. 92, Portmore v Morris, 2 Bro. 219.) … contract, and where it is distinctly declared parol evidence is not more admissible to contradict or substantially to vary that than any other term upon which *378 ^.ie parties have thus expressed their agreement, (Peacock v

Owens v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

152 N.C. 439 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 4, 1910

Brown, J. This case was before us at a former term upon a demurrer ore tenus to the complaint, and is reported in 147 N. C., 357 , which is referred to as to its general nature. … 'We are not disposed to relax tbe just .and reasonable rule laid down in tbe former opinion in this •case, and quoted from tbe opinion in Johnson v. R. R., 130 N.

Hicks v. Albertson

284 N.C. 236 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 14, 1973

See: Hoskins v. Hoskins, 259 N.C. 704 , 131 S.E. *239 2d 326; Rider v. Lenoir County, 238 N.C. 632 , 78 S.E. 2d 745 ; Horner v. Chamber of Commerce, 236 N.C. 96 , 72 S.E. 2d 21 ; Trust Co. v. … Yates v. Brown, 275 N.C. 634 , 170 S.E. 2d 477 ; Root v. Insurance Co., 272 N.C. 580 , 158 S.E. 2d 829 ; Realty Co. v. Batson, 256 N.C. 298 , 123 S.E. 2d 744 .

Thomson v. Harnett County

209 N.C. 662 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 18, 1936

The second question: Under Article V, sec. 6, in Brooks v. Avery County, 206 N. … Commissioners v. Lacy, 174 N. C., 141 ; Ellis v. Greene, 191 N. C., 761 (766).

Graham v. . Spaulding

226 N.C. 86 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 31, 1946

E., 3 ; Locklear v. Savage, 159 N. C., 236 , 74 S. E., 347 ; Coxe v. Carpenter, 157 N. C., 557 , 73 S. E., 113 ; and Berry v. McPherson, 153 N. C., 4 , 68 S. E., 892 . … Austin v. King, 97 N. C., 339 ; Ruffin v. Overby, 105 N. C., 78 , 11 S. E., 251 ; Bernhardt v. Brown, 122 N. C., 587 , 29 S. E., 884 ; Christman v. Hilliard, 167 N. C., 4 , 82 S. E., 949 ; Belk v. Belk, 175 N.

State v. Byrd

363 N.C. 214 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 1, 2009

Diaz v. Div. of Soc. Servs., 360 N.C. 384, 387 , 628 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2006) (citing Burgess v. Your House of Raleigh, Inc., 326 N.C. 205, 209 , 388 S.E.2d 134, 136 (1990)). … Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 94 L.

Warner v. . Halyburton

187 N.C. 414 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 19, 1924

The case presented comes directly within the decisions of the Court in McCausland v. Construction Co., 172 N. C., 708 , and Mfg. Co. v. Andrews, 165 N. … James v. Charlotte, 183 N. C., 630 -632; S. v. R. R., 145 N. C., 495 -499. Whether the members as individuals may be held civilly liable to claimants is not before us, as they have not been sued in that capacity.

Jones v. . Jones

173 N.C. 279 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 4, 1917

Tbe cases of Everton v. Everton, 50 N. C., 202 , and Miller v. Miller, 89 N. … Page v. Page, 167 N.

Barnes v. . Utility Co.

190 N.C. 382 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 4, 1925

Christman v. Hilliard , 167 N.C. 6 ; Oil Co. v. Hunt , 187 N.C. 157 ; Hanes v. Utilities Co. , 188 N.C. 465 ; Hancock v. Southgate, 186 N.C. 282 ." Lindsey v. Lumber Co. , 189 N.C. 119 ; Nash v. … The trolley wires are up under the side of the weather-boarding.

O'Donnell v. . Carr

189 N.C. 77 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 24, 1925

Smith v. Brown, 132 N. C., 365 .

Wray v. . Woolen Mills

205 N.C. 782 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 24, 1934

(Mich.), 1011; Bushnell v. Industrial Board, 114 N. E. (Ill.), 496. Within a month after the death of the employee his dependents filed with the Commission a claim for compensation and it was allowed. … Clark v. Woolen Mills, 204 N. C., 529 ; Johnson v. Bagging Co., 203 N. C., 579 ; Aycock v. Cooper, 202 N. C., 500 . Judgment Affirmed.

Lawrence v. . Hyman

79 N.C. 209 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1878

Blum v, Stafford, 4 Jones, 94 . The interest which is secured to the witnesses by the deed is, that as members of the congregation of Zion church, “ they may at all times enjoy the privilege of worship therein.” … We consider this question settled adversely to this contention, by the cases of Green v. Castlebury, 70 N. C., 20 , and Armfield v. Brown, 70 N. C., 27 . Error. Pee. Curiam. Venire de novo.

Hancock v. . Davis

179 N.C. 282 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 3, 1920

This subject is discussed in the recent case of Kornegay v. Price, 100 S. E. … In First National Bank v. Guerra, 61 Cal., 109 , it is held that a wife cannot claim adversely to her husband or those claiming under him so long as he remains the head of the family. It is held further, in Hendricks v.