Legal Opinion

Wolf v. . Goldstein

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 27, 1926PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff brought this action to recover on certain notes alleged to have been executed by defendant to Mylisb, Mann & Drucker, for a valuable consideration, before maturity, endorsed, sold and delivered to tbe plaintiff by payee. That no part of tbe notes have been paid, and that tbe same are due and owing.

Defendant sets up certain defenses not necessary to set forth.

Tbe issues submitted to tbe jury and tbeir answers thereto, were as follows:

“1. Were tbe notes sued upon extorted from tbe defendant by threatening to defeat tbe offer of composition made by him in tbe bankruptcy proceeding's…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. . SaulsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  2. Hensley v. McDowell Furniture Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  3. Settee v. Charlotte Electric Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  4. Billings v. Charlotte ObserverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
  5. Likas v. LackeySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. . BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  2. State v. . GantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  3. State v. GantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  4. Lowman v. City of AshevilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  5. Greer v. Bank of DamascusSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932

1 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