Watkins v. Murrow
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
RodmáN, J.
We have read with care the testimony and the exhibits. We find no factual conflict in the evidence. The facts found by the Commission are amply supported by the evidence. The parties disagree as to the conclusion drawn from and the legal effect of the undisputed evidence. The facts found by the Commission may be summarized as follows: Byrd was a duly franchised interstate motor carrier of furniture from designated points in North Carolina. Murrow had no right or authority to transport freight in interstate commerce in his own name. Claimant was hired by Murrow in December 1956 as a…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Aycock v. Raleigh & Augusta Air-Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1883
- Hodges v. JohnsonDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 1943
- Brown v. L. H. Bottoms Truck Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
- War Emergency Co-Op. Ass'n v. WidenhouseCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1948
- Newsome v. SurrattSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Booker v. Duke Medical CenterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Hoffman v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- Weaver v. BennettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Cooper v. Asheville Citizen-Times Publishing Co., Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Skipper v. HartleySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1963
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.