Case law

Sury v. Brown

1 N.C. 99 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina · Jul 1, 1793

Brown v. Cranberry Iron & Coal Co.

59 F. 434 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina · Feb 7, 1894

Touch. 86; Noonan v. Bradley, 9 Wall. 394 -407; Steinbach v. Stewart, 11 Wall. 566 -576; Canal Co. v. Hill, 15 Wall. 94 ; Bank v. Kennedy, 17 Wall. 19 -28; Chicago, etc., Ry. Co. v. Denver, etc., R. Co., 143 U. … Merriam v. U. S., 107 U. S. 437 , 2 Sup. Ct. 536; Prentice v. Forwarding Co., 58 Fed. 437 .

Brown v. Cranberry Iron & Coal Co.

82 F. 351 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina · Aug 2, 1897

Brown, and conveyed by said Brown to said I. T. Avery, and also all tfie tracts of land field by conveyance from T. D. … Brown is dated 18th June, 1853, recorded 25th December, 18(56. That by Brown to Avery was recorded 6th August, 1873.

Brown v. Cranberry Iron & Coal Co.

40 F. 849 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina · Nov 15, 1889

Garrett v. White, 8 Ired. Eq. 131 ; Ramsay v. Bell, Id. 209 ; McBryde v. Patterson, 73 N. C. 478 . … Kirk v. Hamilton, 102 U. S. 68 -79.

Blassingame v. Board of Com'rs

172 F. 630 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina · Jan 29, 1909

Matthews v. Board of Corp. Com'rs

97 F. 400 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern North Carolina · Oct 31, 1899

She comes into court complaining of the board of corporation commissioners of the state of North Carolina, in that the said board have so far reduced the rates of freight on fertilizers that the income of the railroad company … Railroad Co. v. Pendleton, supra; Hoge v. Railroad Co., 99 U. S. 348 ; Railroad Co. v. Gibbes, 142 U. S. 390 , 12 Sup. Ct. 255; New York & N. E. R. Co. v. Town of Bristol, 151 U. S. 556 , 14 Sup. Ct. 437.

Matthews v. Board of Corp. Com'rs

106 F. 7 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern North Carolina · Feb 5, 1901

Smyth v. Ames, supra; Turnpike Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578 , 17 Sup. Ct. 198, 41 L. Ed. 560 ; Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418 , 10 Sup. Ct. 462, 33 L. Ed. 970 ; Railway Co. v. … To fix such rates and compensation-is the duty and within the jurisdiction of the board. To fix rates not reasonable, or compensation not just, is a plain violation of duty.

Tolman v. Board of Com'rs

140 F. 89 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern North Carolina · Jul 15, 1905

E. 205 (Wilmington, Onslow & Eastern Carolina Railroad Company v. … The cases of Stanley County v. Coler, 190 U. S. 437 , 23 Sup. Ct. 811, 47 L. Ed. 1126 ; Id., 113 Fed. 705 , 51 C. C. A. 379 ; Wilkes County v. Coler, 190 U. S. 107 , 23 Sup. Ct. 738, 47 L.

Coler v. Board of Com'rs of Stanly County

89 F. 257 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina · Aug 12, 1898

Willis v. Board, 30 C. A. A. 445, 86 Fed. 872. This being so, there is not a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law, such as will prevent the exercise of the established jurisdiction in equity over a trust. … Livingston Co. v. Darlington, 101 U. S. 407 ; Bolles v. Brimfield, 120 U. S. 759 , 7 Sup. Ct. 736; Brown v. Commissioners, 100 N. C. 92 , 5 S. E. 178 .

Union Bank of Richmond v. Board of Com'rs

90 F. 7 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern North Carolina · Nov 11, 1898

Graham v. Tate, 77 N. C. 120 ; Tate v. Phillips, Id. 126 ; Bank v. Board of Com’rs of Town of Oxford, 116 N. C. 340 , 21 S. E. 410 . … Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy, 4 Wall. 535 ; Walker v. Whitehead, 16 Wall. 314 ; Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U. S. 595 ; Barnitz v. Beverly, 163 U. S. 118 , 16 Sup. Ct. 1042.

Wilmington & W. R. v. Board of Railroad Com'rs

90 F. 33 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern North Carolina · Oct 20, 1898

Abbott, personnel of said board, and Z. V. Walser, W. J. Leary, W. E. Daniel, E. W. Pon, M. C. Richardson, and H. E. … Van Rennsselaer v. Brice, 4 Paige, 174 .

Red C. Oil Mfg. Co. v. Board of Agriculture

172 F. 695 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern North Carolina · Sep 7, 1909

In Patapsco Guano Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 171 U. S. 345 , 18 Sup. Ct. 862, 43 L. … Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419 , 6 L. Ed. 678 ; Woodruff v. Parham, 75 U. S. 123, 1 . 9 L. Ed. 382 . In Pittsburg Coal Co. v. Louisiana, 156 U. S. 590 , 15 Sup. Ct. 459, 39 L.

American Fertilizing Co. v. Board of Agriculture of North Carolina

43 F. 609 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern North Carolina · Aug 14, 1890

This case, however, differs from Brown v. … He says, (Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat., at page 449 :) “It may be proper to add that we suppose the principles laid down in this case to apply equally to *612 importations from another state.”

Patapsco Guano Co. v. Board of Agriculture of North Carolina

52 F. 690 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern North Carolina · Sep 24, 1892

This court, in the case of American Fertilizing Co. v. Board of Agriculture, reported in 48 Fed. … Possibly, in the view taken of the subject in the New Orleans Coal Case, (Brown v. Houston,) 114 U. S. 622 , 5 Sup. Ct.

Wallin v. Reagan

171 F. 758 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina · Jul 28, 1909

Ed. 593 ; Hutton v. Bancroft Co. (C. C.) 77 Fed. 481 .” In Rogers v. Penobscot Mining Company, 154 Fed. 606, 610 , 83 C. C. … A. 73, 75 ; Celia, Adler & Tilles v. Brown (C. C.) 136 Fed. 439, 442 ; Cella v. Brown, 144 Fed. 742, 754 , 75 C. C. A. 608, 620 .

Tucker v. Russell

82 F. 263 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern North Carolina · Jul 20, 1897

Bank v. Knoop, 16 How. 369 ; Railroad Co. v. Reid, 13 Wall. 264 ; Fry v. Railroad Co., 2 Metc. (Ky.) 314; Cook, Stocks & S. §§ 494, 500; Mor. Priv. Corp. § 645. … Williams v. Hagood, 98 U. S. 72 . It can only consider the existing facts before it, and upon such facts pronounce the law and apply the remedy.

United States v. The Matilda

26 F. Cas. 1200 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina · May 15, 1813

See Hutson v. Jordan [Case No. 6,959], approving case in text. Upon the second point the counsel for the claimants relied upon 2 Ruth. Inst. 564; 3 C. Rob. … Upon the second point he introduced and relied upon as conclusive authorities, Browne, Civ. & Adm. Law, 281, 282, 453, and 8 Term R. 224.

Southern Ry. Co. v. North Carolina R.

81 F. 595 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina · Jun 29, 1897

S. 557 ; McComb v. Board, 2 Woods 48 , Fed. Cas. No. 8,707., In Curran v. … board.

Bealmear v. Hutchins

134 F. 257 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina · Nov 15, 1904

And in the case of Brown v. Brown, 103 N. C. 217 , 8 S. … On the rehearing in Brown v. Brown, 103 N. C. 221 , 9 S.

Southern Ry. Co. v. North Carolina Corp. Commission

97 F. 513 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern North Carolina · Nov 4, 1899

Bank v. Perea, 147 U. S. 87 , 13 Sup. Ct. 194; Railroad Co. v. Clark, 153 U. S. 252 , 14 Sup. Ct. 809. … S. v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369 , Fed. Cas. No. 16,690; Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U. S. 474 , 12 Sup. Ct. 55; Rice v. U. S., 4 C. C. A. 104 , 53 Fed. 910 .