Rich v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Supreme Court of North Carolina
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
- James v. PretlowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- Caldwell v. . CaldwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- Gilchrist v. . KitchenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
- Becton v. Dunn.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
- Mills v. RichardsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- North Carolina National Bank v. Virginia Carolina BuildersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- Harrington v. RiceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957
- Potts v. HowserSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
- Peebles v. MooreCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- Highfill v. WilliamsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.