Legal Opinion

Neal v. . MacE

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 5, 1883PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMerrimon, J.

It does not appear in the record that any case has been settled upon appeal for this court, nor are errors assigned in the record. Upon examination, we find that the court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of the action. In such a case the judgment will be affirmed. Swepson v. Clayton, 74 N. C., 551; Bryant v. Fisher, 85 N. C., (369; McDaniel v. Pollock, 87 N. C., 503. Judgment affirmed. Let this be certified.

No error. Affirmed.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. McDaniel v. . PollockSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Randleman Manufacturing Co. v. SimmonsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
  2. McCoy v. LassiterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
  3. Rencher v. . AndersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
  4. Abernathy v. WithersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
  5. Abernathy v. . WithersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888

1 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