Legal Opinion

Economy Electric Co. v. Automatic Electric Power & Light Plant

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 8, 1923PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, J.,

after stating the case: At the close of plaintiffs’ evidence, and again at the close of all the evidence, defendant Automatic Electric Power and Light Plant, and Ludington State Bank, intervener, moved for judgment as of nonsuit, and the refusal of the court to allow their motion is the ground of the first exception. In support of this exception, defendant and intervener contend that the plaintiffs have obtained jurisdiction of their property and thereby induced them to come into court by fraud or other improper means, and that the only adequate remedy which the law affords an…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Wheelock v. . LeeNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
  2. Roberts v. . AllmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
  3. Wheeler v. . CobbSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1876
  4. Harris v. . BennettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
  5. Sherman v. GundlachSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Cushing v. CushingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  2. Sugg v. St. Mary's Oil Engine Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  3. Tickle v. BartonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1956
  4. Tickle v. BartonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1956

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

Powered by the Exa API