Mercer v. . Williams
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.
In view of the trial theory of the case, which is controlling on appeal (In re Parker, 209 N. C., 693, 184 S. E., 532), it is not perceived, upon the allegations presently appearing, how the defendants can be held liable for plaintiff’s intestate’s death, unfortunate and distressing as it was. The allegation of negligent failure to repair the demised premises, in breach of a covenant to do so, is not made out. Improvement Co. v. Coley-Bardin, 156 N. C., 255, 72 S. E., 312. Nor is it established by the evidence that the defendants negligently omitted to give notice of known or latent defects.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Galvin v. BealsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- In Re ParkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Jordan v. . MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
- Tucker v. Park Yarn Mill Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
- Fields v. . OgburnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Livingston v. . Investment Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
- Robinson v. ThomasSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- Thompson v. ShoemakerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970
- Harrill v. Sinclair Refining Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
- Livingston v. Essex Investment Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.