Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Brown v. Southern Railway Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided May 24, 1933PublishedCited by 51 opinions
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partClarkson, J.
This cause was considered by the court and the opinion reported in202 N.C. 256, 162 S.E. 613, where the facts are set forth in detail.
After the decision was rendered the defendant filed an amended answer by leave of court alleging:
"1. That as stated in the affidavit of plaintiff administrator heretofore filed in this action, plaintiff's intestate, M. T. Askew, was at the time of his death an employee of Chester Brown, trading and doing business as Chero-Cola Bottling Company, and as such, the administrator of the said M. T. Askew, was entitled to receive and did receive and accept…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- General Box Co. v. Missouri Utilities Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1932
- Brown v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- Davis v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- Otis Elevator, Co. v. Miller & PaineCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1917
- Graham v. City of LincolnNebraska Supreme Court · 1921
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- Witt v. JacksonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Ramos v. Browning Ferris Industries of South Jersey, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1986
- Lovette v. LloydSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Arctic Structures, Inc. v. WedmoreAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
- Hunsucker v. High Point Bending & Chair Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.