Carter v. . McGill
Supreme Court of North Carolina
PetitioN to rehear. Appeal by defendant from Goolce, J., at September Term, 1914, of Cumberland.
1Opinion of the Court
Pee. CubiaM.
This is a petition to- rehear. Tbe Court, after due consideration, is of tbe .opinion tbat tbe former judgment should be affirmed. See s. c., 168 N. C., 507. It appears tbat tbe defendant offered to show generally, tbat is, without indicating tbe precise nature of tbe evidence, tbat tbe fertilizer was worthless, and this evidence was excluded. As to tbe other question in tbe case, tbe proof as to tbe yield of crops, it will be difficult, as we know, for tbe defendant to comply with the exacting rule we bave laid down, and exclude from tbe evidence offered to show tbe state of tbe…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hampton Guano Co. v. Hill Live-Stock Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Tomlinson & Co. v. MorganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- Carter v. . McGillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
- Freeman v. Mayor of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1881
- Germofert Mfg. Co. v. CathcartSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1916
3Cited by11 opinions
- Swift Co. v. . AydlettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
- Swift & Co. v. AydlettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
- Jones v. Union Guano Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Armour Fertilizer Works v. AikenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
- Pearsall & Co. v. EakinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.