Legal Opinion

Security Finance Co. v. Mills

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 21, 1928PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, O. J.

Tbe validity of the trial is called in question by numerous exceptions and assignments of error, but we shall not consider them seriatim, as it is necessary to award a new trial for failure of the court to instruct the jury as requested by the plaintiff in one of its special prayers, that if they found the facts according to' the evidence or as it tends to show, the first issue should be answered in favor of the plaintiff.

Notwithstanding the defendant’s plea of fraud in the treaty, and evidence tending to support it (Furst v. Merritt, 190 N. C., 397, 130 S. E., 40), we find no…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Furst v. . MerrittSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  2. Commercial Bank v. BurgwynSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892
  3. Medlin v. . BufordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
  4. Commercial Bank v. BurgwynSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
  5. Murfreesboro Railroad v. Board of CommissionersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. B. v. Emery & Co. v. WilkinsonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1934
  2. Jones v. ComerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1941
  3. M. & J. Finance Corp. v. RinehardtSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  4. Finance Corp. v. . RinehardtSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939

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

Powered by the Exa API