Legal Opinion

Harris v. Queen City Coach Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 24, 1941PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtScheNCK, J.

The defendant, appellant, assigns as error the following excerpt from his Honor’s charge: “If you answer that issue (the third issue relating to alleged willfulness and maliciousness of the refusal of tbe defendant to transport tbe plaintiff) yes, tbat is if yon find that tbe wrong done tbis boy was done in rudeness, witb malice, witb disregard to tbe rights of others, then answer tbat issue yes, or if you find tbat be was declined tbat seat because be was a Negro, answer tbat issue yes. If you fail to so find answer it no.

“Then if you say yes to tbe issue, it is a question in your sound…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Knowles v. Norfolk Southern RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
  2. Hayes v. RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  3. Robinson Ex Rel. Robinson v. McAlhaneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  4. Motsinger v. . SinkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  5. Ford v. . McAnallySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Lutz Industries, Inc. v. Dixie Home StoresSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  2. Hunter v. SpauldingCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
  3. Carter v. ParsonsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API