Dayton Rubber Manufacturing Co. v. Horn
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBrogden, J.
Tbe defendants assert that the trial judge had no power to order a compulsory reference by virtue of 0. S., 573, for that:(a) The reply constituted a plea in bar.(b) The account was not long or complicated.
The pleadings disclosed a course of dealing between the parties for a substantial period. These transactions involve many items, and, while the methods of doing business and of computing the profit or compensation of plaintiff were changed from time to time, the course of dealing was practically continuous. Consequently, the action, in its essential features, involved an accounting. There…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Murchison National Bank v. EvansSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
- Murchison National Bank v. McCormickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
3Cited by7 opinions
- Rudisill v. HoyleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
- Long v. HoneycuttSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- Texas Co. v. . PhillipsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
- Caudell v. BlairSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
- Fry v. . Pomona Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.