Legal Opinion

Kinsland v. . Kinsland

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 19, 1924PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAdams, J.

Upon a former appeal the restraining order was dissolved without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff to renew his motion upon definitely establishing tbe facts at tbe final bearing. 186 N. C., 760. Afterwards, tbe canse came on for trial upon an amended complaint, in wbicb tbe plaintiff prayed tbat tbe dam be declared a trespass and a nuisance and tbat an order be issued restraining tbe defendants from wrongful entry upon tbe plaintiff’s land.

Tbe theory upon wbicb tbe action was dismissed is not stated in tbe judgment, but from tbe defendant’s brief, we infer it rests on tbe contention…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bond v. . WoolSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
  2. Cobb v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  3. Lee v. . LeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
  4. Lyerly v. . WheelerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1853
  5. Kinsland v. . KinslandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Matthews v. ForrestSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  2. Clinton v. . RossSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  3. O'Neal v. . RollinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  4. Town of Clinton v. RossSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  5. Woolen Mills v. . Land Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1922

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API