Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Bailey v. Hayman

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 26, 1941Published

1ConcurrenceSea well, J.

I concur in the result reached in this case, but only on the ground stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Clarkson. The objection to the remarks of the judge in stating the- contentions of the parties is well within the established policy of the court requiring such matters to be called to the attention of the court at the time. The incident is governed by Bryant v. Reedy, 214 N. C., 748, 200 S. E., 896; Rooks v. Bruce, 213 N. C., 58, 195 S. E., 26; Sorrells v. Decker, 212 N. C., 251, 193 S. E., 14; Noland Co. v. Jones, 211 N. C., 462, 190 S. E., 720; S. v. Sinodis, 189 N. C., 565, 127 S. E.,…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Alexander v. Richmond Cedar WorksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
  2. Bailey v. . HassellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  3. Alexander v. . Cedar WorksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
  4. State v. . SinodisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  5. State v. . LoveSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924

8 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