Veazey v. City of Durham
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtErvin, J.
Tbe order refusing a reference shows on its face tbat tbe court denied tbe motion for a compulsory reference as a matter of discretion. This being so, the appeal necessarily proceeds on tbe assumption tbat the court should have granted a compulsory reference because tbe defendant was entitled to demand tbat mode of trial as a matter of right in tbe action at bar.
Tbe statute which controls tbe granting of compulsory references is embodied in G.S. 1-189. It provides tbat “where tbe parties do not consent, the court may, upon tbe application of either, or of its own motion, direct a reference”…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Fitzgerald v. HaywardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
- Rector v. . RectorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- Harmon v. MartinIllinois Supreme Court · 1947
- Fortune v. . WatkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
- Royster v. . WrightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Craig Ex Rel. Craig v. New Hanover County Board of EducationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2009
- Bailey v. GoodingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- Fabrikant v. Currituck CountyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
- Hamilton v. MORTGAGE INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
- Williams v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.