Legal Opinion · Dissent

Harvey v. . Oettinger

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 9, 1927PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1DissentConnor, J.

Civil action for contribution. Plaintiff and defendants, being stockholders in the Kinston Knitting Company, endorsed for accommodation, certain notes of said company, which were paid by plaintiff after default on the part of the principal and demand for payment refused by each of the defendants, coendorsers with plaintiff. Plaintiff sues for contribution.

The defendants, H.E. Moseley, L.L. Oettinger, F. C. Dunn and Mrs. Myrtie A. Tull, executrix of the estate of Henry Tull, deceased, demurredore tenus to the complaint, but this was overruled. They then answered, setting out in detail the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Douglass v. DawsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  2. Moore v. . MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1826

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Erickson v. StarlingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  2. Hunsucker v. High Point Bending & Chair Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  3. Bunker v. . LlewellynSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  4. MEDICAL MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MauldinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
  5. Erickson v. StarlingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API