Seminole Phosphate Co. v. Johnson
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtCoNNOR, J.
Defendant’s exception to the exclusion of the testimony of the witness -Goldstein, offered by defendant as evidence upon his allegation that the execution of the notes was procured by fraudulent representations, must be ■ sustained. This testimony was competent as evidence tending to establish a fact proper to. be considered by the jury in determining whether or not the same representation, if made to defendant, was fraudulent. If the jury should find that in selling to another stock of the same series as that sold to defendant, the same representation was made to both as an inducement to…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Courtney v. . ParkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
- Standard Fashion Co. v. GrantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- Covington v. . ThreadgillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1883
- Robertson v. HaltonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- McLeod v. Board of CommissionersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Joseph P. Ruth, Sometimes Also Known as J. P. Ruth v. The Eagle-Picher Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1955
- In Re the Receivership of Port Publishing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- State v. LittleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
- Kornegay Family Farms LLC v. Cross Creek Seed, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2017
- Joseph P. Ruth, Sometimes Also Known as J. P. Ruth v. The Eagle-Picher Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1955