Legal Opinion

Tomberlin v. . Bachtel

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 24, 1937PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDevin, J.

The determinative question involved in this appeal is presented by defendant’s contention that the machines, about the operation and ownership of which the parties contracted, were gambling devices, and illegal, and that an acti.on to recover profits therefrom could not be maintained.

The issue on this phase of the case, submitted to the jury in the general county court, was as follows: “Was the contract sued on illegal in that it constituted a gambling transaction,' as condemned by law?” Upon this issue the judge of the county court charged as follows: “If you believe the testimony of the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Dail v. TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
  2. State v. . HumphriesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  3. King v. . WinantsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874
  4. Smith v. Safety Coach Line, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  5. Hadley v. . TinninSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Cole v. KoonceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  2. Cole v. . KoonceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  3. Manheim Ex Rel. Manheim v. Blue Bird Taxi Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  4. Crone v. . FisherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  5. Fox v. . Army StoreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939

3 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