Legal Opinion

Long v. Honeycutt

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided August 26, 1966No. 442PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtParker, C.J.

Defendant assigns as error the order of compulsory reference. This assignment of error is overruled.

G.S. 1-189 provides in relevant part: “Where the parties do not consent, the court may, upon the application of either, or of its own motion, direct a reference in the following cases: 1. Where the trial of an issue of fact requires the examination of a long account on either side; in which case the referee may be directed to hear and decide the whole issue, or to report upon any specific question of fact involved therein.” It is said in Rudisill v. Hoyle, 254 N.C. 33, 118 S.E. 2d 145: “The…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Murchison National Bank v. EvansSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  2. Balint v. GraysonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  3. Rudisill v. HoyleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
  4. Jones v. MathisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
  5. Grimes v. County of BeaufortSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Singleton v. StewartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  2. State v. KirbySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  3. Robertson Ex Rel. Robertson v. StanleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  4. Dockery v. HocuttSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2003
  5. Livermon v. BridgettCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985

7 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