Roe v. . Journegan
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by plaintiff from Guión, J., at the November Term, 1919, of FbANKXIN. This is an action to recover land. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.
1Per curiam
The facts are fully stated in the report of the first appeal in this action. 175 N. C., 262.
On the second trial the court admitted the same declaration of W. S. Roe, which the court formerly held to be incompetent, and the plaintiff, having excepted, again appealed.
This ruling of the judge was upon the idea that the defendant having introduced evidence that W. S. Roe was not the sole heir of his father and that he moved from the land in controversy and bought other land; that this met the requirements of the court in the former opinion, but, while these circumstances were properly considered…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hicks v. Hicks.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
3Cited by10 opinions
- Diamond v. McDonald Service StoresSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
- Hood v. Queen City Coach CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
- Philibert v. Benjamin Ansehl Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1938
- Cupita v. Carmel Country Club, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
- Bynum v. Wilson CountyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2013
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.