Legal Opinion

Morris v. Holshouser

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 5, 1941PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDevin, J.

The plaintiff’s appeal presents the question of the constitutionality of chapter 410, Public Laws 1935, as amended, which we quote as follows:

“No employer of labor shall be responsible for any assignment of wages to be earned in the future, executed by an employee, unless and until such assignment of wages is accepted by the employer in a written agreement to pay same.”

The right of an assignee to sue in his own name upon an assignment of wages already earned by the employee and due by the employer was upheld in Rickman v. Holshouser, 217 N. C., 377, 8 S. E. (2d), 199. In that case the…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Virginian Railway Co. v. System Federation No. 40Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
  2. West Coast Hotel Co. v. ParrishSupreme Court of the United States · 1937
  3. New York Central Railroad Company v. WhiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  4. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. McGuireSupreme Court of the United States · 1911
  5. Alaska Packers Assn. v. Industrial Accident Comm'n of Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1935

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Childress v. AbelesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  2. Bailey v. StateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
  3. Alford v. Textile Insurance CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
  4. Coleman v. . WhisnantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  5. Coleman v. WhisnantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945

18 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