Nowell v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtHiggiNS, J.
The plaintiffs’ evidence disclosed the action against the Tea Company was not brought within three years from the time it accrued. The evidence established the Tea Company’s plea in bar. Nonsuit was required.'The appellant interposed a like plea which the court overruled. Assignment of Error No. 2 challenges this ruling.
The appellant has contended the nonsuit should have been entered upon two grounds: First, the allegations and the evidence showed that R. L. Taylor, engineer for the Tea Company, was also the agent of the plaintiffs and, as such, had supervised the construction and, with full…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Vail v. VailSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Shearin v. LloydSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- Peek v. Wachovia Bank & Trust CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- Boddie v. BondSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- McNeely Ex Rel. McNeely v. WaltersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by58 opinions
- Watkins v. Central Motor Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- Bryant v. AdamsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
- Jewell v. PriceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- Matthieu v. Piedmont Natural Gas CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- Duke University v. StainbackSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
53 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.