Legal Opinion

Tomlins Ex Rel. Ledbetter v. Cranford

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 9, 1947PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarnhill, J.

The record states that the case was called at a time counsel for defendants was not in court and the court denied a motion to continue for that reason. Nothing further is made to appear. Hence the disposition of the motion was within the discretion of the presiding judge. But see Moore v. Dickson, 74 N. C., 423.

The defendants, it is true, set forth in their brief certain facts, controverted in part by plaintiff, leading up to and causing the absence of counsel at the time the ease was unexpectedly reached for trial. But the Supreme, Court can judicially know only what appears of record. S. v.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. In Re Will of CravenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  2. Wadford v. . GilletteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  3. State v. . MorganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  4. State Ex Rel. North Carolina Utilities Commission v. City of KinstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  5. Beard v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Vassey v. BurchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  2. State v. BranchSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  3. State v. WinfordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  4. Lawing v. JaynesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1974
  5. Colwell Electric Co. v. Kale-Barnwell Realty & Construction Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1966

5 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