Legal Opinion

Greer v. Bank of Damascus

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 27, 1932PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Pee Cueiam.

This controversy was here before — In re Bauguess, 196 N. C., 278. The plaintiffs only contend that they can recover $3,000 and interest. Why, therefore, compel defendants to pay $7,000 into court? We think in the interest of justice the court should not have ordered more than $3,000 and interest, the amount plaintiffs sue for, to be paid into court. It was discretionary for the court below to withdraw a juror. Wolf v. Goldstein, 192 N. C., 818; S. v. Guice, 201 N. C., 761. The ordering of $7,000 to be paid into court affected a substantial right.

In modifying and affirming this…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. . GuiceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  2. Wolf v. . GoldsteinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  3. In Re BauguessSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. DrakeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API