Legal Opinion

City National Bank of Norfolk v. Bridgers

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 5, 1894PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

It appears that when the Judge settled the case on appeal he declined to send up the additional matters now asked for by the motion for certiorari, and that he did this on the ground that such matters had no relevancy to the exceptions presented upon the appeal. This Court has always discouraged encumbering the record and increasing the costs by sending up irrelevant and redundant matter. Durham v. Railroad, 108 N. C., 404. It does not appear that the Judge has changed his mind, but simply that lie will, as counsel insists on it, send up the excluded matter if this Court desires it. When it…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Attorney General Ex Rel. Boyer v. TeagueSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
  2. Porter v. Western North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
  3. State v. . SloanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Slocumb v. Construction Company.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  2. Riggan v. . SledgeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
  3. Sherrill v. Western Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
  4. Cameron v. . Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
  5. Slocumb v. Construction Company.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906

2 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