Legal Opinion

Hill v. . Young

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 2, 1940PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWinborne, J.

While defendant presents numerous exceptive assignments, only a few require consideration, and none shows prejudicial error.

In brief filed defendant states that “This is a processioning proceeding, with title drawn in issue, wherein defendant denies correctness of location of the dividing line, and pleads estoppel and statute of limitations in bar of plaintiffs’ claim.” A perusal of the record discloses that in the Superior Court this is the theory upon which the case was tried.

The defendant pleads and contended upon the trial below that even though the jury should find the true location of…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Bryan v. . SpiveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
  2. Ruffin v. . OverbySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
  3. Virginia-Carolina Power Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  4. Hill v. Dalton.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  5. Ryder v. . OatesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. LaVecchia v. North Carolina Joint Stock Land Bank of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  2. Oliver v. . OliverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  3. Simmons v. LeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  4. McGowan v. BeachSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  5. Williams v. STATE HIGHWAY COM. OF NORTH CAROLINASupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960

6 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