Legal Opinion

Balk v. Harris.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 24, 1903PublishedCited by 2 opinions

PetitioN to rehear this case, reported in 130 N. 0., 381. Petition dismissed.

1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.

This case is again before the Court upon a petition to rehear the judgment rendered at February Term, 1902. When the case was first here, at February Term, 1898, upon appeal of the plaintiff (122 N. C., 64; 45 L. R. A., 257), this Court decided that the judgment of the Maryland Court in the garnishment proceedings, which was pleaded by the defendant in this' suit as a defence in bar of plaintiff’s recovery, could not avail the defendant, because it was invalid for two reasons, (1) that the affidavit upon which the writ of garnishment’ issued was defective, in that it failed to state that the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Life Insurance v. TerrySupreme Court of the United States · 1873
  2. Butts v. . ScrewsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
  3. Nissen v. Genesee Gold Mining Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
  4. Balk v. . HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1898
  5. Balk v. Harris.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1902

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Foxman v. . HanesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  2. Nissen v. . Mining CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889

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

Powered by the Exa API