Legal Opinion

Sinclair v. Moore Central Railroad

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 19, 1947PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBarnhill, J.

At the time Pittman, J., issued notice to the defendants to appear and show cause why a permanent operating receiver should not be appointed for the corporate defendant and on 6 March 1947, the return date of said notice, when an order appointing such receiver was entered, this cause was pending in this Court on the appeal of plaintiffs from the decree of 30 December 1946. The judge was at that time, in respect to this action, functus officio, and said order is void and of no effect. Hoke v. Greyhound Corp., 227 N. C., 374, and cited cases.

For a further reason said order, in so far as it…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Colorado v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. Booth v. ClarkSupreme Court of the United States · 1855
  3. Railroad Commission of Texas v. Eastern Texas RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  4. Coates Bros. v. . WilkesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
  5. Hoke v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1947

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Lowder v. All Star Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  2. State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission v. Haywood Electric Membership Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  3. Murphy v. MurphySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  4. Patrick v. HurdleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969
  5. PIEDMONT VENTURE PARTNERS, L.P. and PIEDMONT VENTURE PARTNERS II, L.P. by and Through WILLIAM E. RAY, Liquidator v. DELOITTE & TOUCHE, L.L.P.North Carolina Business Court · 2007

4 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