Legal Opinion

Adams v. . Woodie

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 25, 1931PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

At the second hearing before the referee the plaintiffs “mended their lick” and offered sufficient evidence of possession of the premises in controversy to support the finding of fact by the referee. Bryan v. Spivey, 109 N. C., 57, 13 S. E., 766; Berry v. McPherson, 153 N. C., 4, 68 S. E., 892.

At the time the referee reopened the hearing no final report had been made and the entire matter was pending before the referee. Four days notice of reopening tbe case was given by tbe referee instead of ten days. And even if it be conceded tbat, under tbe circumstances, ten days notice should bave been…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bryan v. . SpiveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
  2. Berry v. . McPhersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
  3. Coleman v. . McCulloughSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Bagby v. BowenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API