Legal Opinion

Casey v. East Carolina Railway

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 5, 1930PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, 0. J.

The principal exceptions, upon which the defendant relies, are, first, the refusal of the court to dismiss the action for failure of plaintiff to file a bill of particulars within the time specified, and, second, for refusal to order a compulsory reference on motion of the defendant. Neither assignment of error, based on these exceptions, can be sustained. While the plaintiff was a few days late in filing his bill of particulars, nevertheless it appears that same was filed 21 Eebruary, 1929, and the case was not tried until the October Special Term thereafter, nearly eight months…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bucken v. South & Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  2. Cressler v. Asheville.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  3. Skipper v. Kingsdale Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
  4. Brewer v. Mineola Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1912

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Pruitt v. WoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  2. Pruitt v. . WoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  3. Anderson v. Wray Plumbing & Heating Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  4. Marciniak v. Wauregan Mills, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
  5. State v. McNeillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954

1 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