Legal Opinion

Commercial Finance Co. v. Culler

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 6, 1953PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

DeNN't; J.

A compulsory reférenee is not authorized on tbe ground tbat tbe trial requires tbe examination of long accounts in an action *760instituted to recover on a promissory note or an account where tbe receipt of each and every payment alleged to have been made thereon is admitted. Acceptance Corp. v. Pillman, 235 N.C. 295, 69 S.E. 2d 563; Lee v. Thornston, 176 N.C. 208, 97 S.E. 23; Peyton v. Shoe Co., 167 N.C. 280, 83 S.E. 487; Hall v. Graige, 65 N.C. 51. Where numerous payments on an indebtedness have been made, the case involves only a matter of computation of figures and has none of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Peyton v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  2. Hall v. . CraigeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1871
  3. Peyton v. . Shoe Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  4. Lee v. . ThorntonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
  5. Coin Machine Acceptance Corp. v. PillmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Long v. HoneycuttSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API