Legal Opinion

Thompson v. Thompson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 16, 1952No. 377PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.

The agreed statement of case on appeal indicates that the defendants in challenging the proceedings below assigned five errors. Of these, however, only two are brought forward on brief. Therefore, the other three assignments of error, in support of which no argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 562 et seq. Rose v. Bank, 217 N.C. 600, 9 S.E. 2d 2; Dillingham v. Kligerman, ante, 298.

The remaining assignments, 2 and 5, will be stated and discussed in that order:

Assignment of Error No. 2. — Here the defendant…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Town of Burnsville v. BooneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  2. Vestal v. Moseley Vending MacHine Exchange, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  3. Weaver v. MorganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  4. Rose v. . BankSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  5. Rose v. Bank of WadesboroSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Worsley v. S. &. W. Rendering Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  2. In Re Sams'estateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  3. State Trust Co. v. M & J FINANCE CORP.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  4. In Re Housing Authority of City of SalisburySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API