Legal Opinion

Prentzas v. Prentzas

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided July 19, 1963No. 605PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRodman, J.

The court instructed the jury if it found the facts to be as all the evidence tended to show, it should answer the first issue (statute of limitations) in the negative. Defendants assign this peremptory instruction as error. The partnership existing between Louis and John created a fiduciary relationship imposing on John, the managing partner, the duty upon request of Louis, to render a full and accurate account of partnership affairs. Casey v. Grantham, 239 N.C. 121, 79 S.E. 2d 735. The three-year statute of limitations was applicable to plaintiff’s claim against John or his estate, G.S.…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Teachey v. . GurleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  2. Greene v. SpiveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  3. Bizzell v. BizzellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
  4. Casey v. GranthamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  5. Allgood v. Wilmington Savings & Trust CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Collier v. BryantCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
  2. Cullen v. Valley Forge Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
  3. Lee v. Crosswhite (In Re Crosswhite)United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · 1988
  4. Baillie Lumber Co. v. Kincaid Carolina Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969
  5. Bennett v. ANSON BANK & TRUST COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965

17 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