Legal Opinion

Kerr v. Hicks.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 30, 1902PublishedCited by 15 opinions

PetitioN to rehear this ease as reported in 129 N. C., 141, is allowed.

1Opinion of the CourtCeaRK, J.

This was an action begun in 1891 by husband and wife, mortgagors, against the mortgagee, alleging overcharges, usury and overpayment, asking for a statement of the account, judgment for balance due plaintiffs, and a cancellation of the mortgage, and for a restraining order against tbe sale of the mortgaged property, pending the action. The defendant averred in his answer, among other things, that the plaintiffs were estopped by accounts rendered, which they had accepted without objection. At the return term, time was given to file complaint and answer, and at the same term a reference was…

Also in this document: Dissent.

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Jones v. . BeamanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
  2. Grant v. . HughesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
  3. Wilson v. . PearsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
  4. Kerr v. Hicks.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1901
  5. Allen v. . AllenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Murchison National Bank v. EvansSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  2. Jones v. Wooten.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  3. Peyton v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  4. Peyton v. . Shoe Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  5. Pritchett v. Greensboro Supply Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1910

10 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