Legal Opinion

Carter v. Long

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 15, 1895PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Clark, J.:

This is a motion to reinstate this appeal which was dismissed at this term for failure to print as required by rules 28 and 29. The motion to re-instate in such cases is allowed only for good cause shown. Horton v. Green, 104 N. C., 400; Whitehurst v. Pettifer, 105 N. C., 39. In the present case no affidavit was filed. Counsel filed a written statement, upon information, that the appellant had requested the clerk of the court of his county to request the clerk of this Court to have the record printed and send him the bill which he would pay. This is not controverted, and taking it…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Horton v. . GreenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
  2. Paine v. . CuretonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
  3. Edwards v. Town of HendersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
  4. Pipkin v. . GreenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
  5. Hunt v. Richmond & Danville RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Wiley v. Bessemer City Mining Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
  2. Hensley v. Davidson Bros.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1909

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

Powered by the Exa API