Legal Opinion

Beeson Hardware Co. v. Burtner

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 19, 1930PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Pee Cueiam.

The judgment to which the defendant, D. H. Burtner, excepted, and from which he appealed to this Court, is supported by the facts established by the verdict of the jury on the trial of this action. The judgment must be affirmed, unless there was error in the trial of tbe issues submitted to the jury. Rutherford Hospital v. The Florence Mills, 186 N. C., 554, 120 S. E., 212.

We find no error in the trial. There was no substantial controversy as to the facts. In Granite Co. v. Bank, 172 N. C., 354, 90 S. E., 312, it is said: “It is immaterial whether the contractor had been paid up in…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Borden Brick & Tile Co. v. PulleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  2. Mfg. Co. v. . BlaylockSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  3. Rutherford Hospital v. Florence MillsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
  4. Granite Co. v. . BankSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  5. Piedmont Electric Co. v. Vance Plumbing & Electric Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1929

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. High v. PearceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  2. High v. . PearceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  3. Saul Ritzenberg v. Noland Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1966
  4. Huske Hardware House v. PercivalSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API