Legal Opinion

Ferguson Ex Rel. Ferguson v. Rex Spinning Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 13, 1929PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClaeesoN, J.

Tbe material question for our determination was whether Whitey Barnes, under tbe facts and circumstances of tbis case, was acting within tbe “scope of bis employment?” We cannot so bold.

Tbe law, as stated in 18 R. C. L., p. 795-6, is as follows: “Acts impliedly authorized or such as are within tbe scope of tbe employment— that is, wrongs for which tbe employer may be held accountable — are not susceptible of precise or even very helpful definition by any phrase or short form of expression. Each case must be determined with a view to tbe surrounding facts and circumstances — tbe character of…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Cook v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1901
  2. Gallop v. . ClarkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  3. Cooper v. Southern RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  4. Munick v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  5. Seward v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1912

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Martin v. Greensboro-Fayetteville Bus LineSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  2. Van Landingham Ex Rel. Van Landingham v. Singer Sewing MacHine Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  3. Jeffrey v. . Manufacturing CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929
  4. Hiroshima v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1936
  5. Lamm Ex Rel. Lamm v. Charles Stores Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1931

10 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