Adder v. Holman & Moody, Inc.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
BRANCH, Justice.
The rationale of the opinion of the Court of Appeals is that defendant wrongfully held plaintiff’s automobile and thereby obtained the execution of a note and “release” from him, by duress of goods. In reaching its decision, the majority of the panel relied on Joyner v. Joyner, 264 N.C. 27, 140 S.E. 2d 714, and Smithwick v. Whitley, 152 N.C. 369, 67 S.E. 913.
In Smithwick plaintiff offered evidence that he bought a certain parcel of land from defendant at an agreed price of $35 per acre and executed notes secured by a deed of trust for the purchase price; that defendant, in…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Lane v. ScarboroughSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- Hackley v. HeadleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Root v. Allstate Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
- Hartsville Oil Mill v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Silliman v. United States. United States v. SillimanSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- Jackson v. BumgardnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
- White v. WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Texaco, Inc. v. CreelSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
- Clayton v. BransonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
- Bolton Corp. v. T. A. Loving Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.