Legal Opinion

Rich v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 23, 1956No. 672PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBobbitt, J.

The findings of fact made by Judge Hall are not challenged. Are they sufficient to support his order? If so, the order must be affirmed. James v. Pretlow, 242 N.C. 102, 86 S.E. 2d 759, and cases cited.

The facts found include those stated in (our) numbered paragraphs below.

1. The summons and complaint were served on the corporate defendant and on defendants G. T. Williams, W. L. Williams and J. A. Woods. There was no service on defendant James McDonald.

2. Corporate defendant, as was its custom, employed counsel, a well-known firm in Durham County and a well-known firm in Wake County, to defend…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. James v. PretlowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  2. Caldwell v. . CaldwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  3. Gilchrist v. . KitchenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
  4. Becton v. Dunn.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  5. Mills v. RichardsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. North Carolina National Bank v. Virginia Carolina BuildersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  2. Harrington v. RiceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
  3. Potts v. HowserSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  4. Peebles v. MooreCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  5. Highfill v. WilliamsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973

12 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