Legal Opinion

Clayton Banking Co. v. Farmers Bank

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 17, 1937PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, 0. J.

Even if it be conceded that the original order of confirmation was irregularly entered, still no harm seems to have come to movant, as later decreed by the judgment at the September Term, which also apparently amounts to an order of confirmation. But, however this may be, the record is barren of any factual determination upon which a reversal of the judgment could be predicated. Hospital v. Rockingham County, ante, 205.

In a motion of this kind, where .the correctness of the court’s ruling is dependent upon facts aliunde or dehors the record, a request should be made that the facts…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Gardiner v. MaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  2. Gardiner v. . MaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  3. Dunn v. . WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  4. State v. . DaltonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  5. Holcomb v. . HolcombSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. McCune v. Rhodes-Rhyne Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  2. State v. . HedgebethSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
  3. Smith v. Land & Mineral Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  4. Wood v. Woodbury & Pace, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
  5. Wood v. . Woodbury Pace, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API