Maynard v. DURHAM AND SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
Denny,' 'J.
The defendant concedes that probably the evidence 'offered by the plaintiff in the trial below was sufficient to take the case to the jury had the plaintiff -not signed the release set out herein, which the defendant pleaded in bar of his right to recover. Therefore, the 'question for determination is whether or not the plaintiff’s evidence in support of his allegations that the release was without consideration and wrongfully procured by means of fraud and duress, was sufficient to warrant its submission to the jury.
It was admitted in the trial below that the defendant was en…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Callen v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. KuhnSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Ricketts v. Pennsylvania R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1946
- Ward v. . HealthSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Maynard v. Durham & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Cowart v. HoneycuttSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- Rhone-Poulenc Agro, S.A. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Rhône-Poulenc Agro S.A. v. Monsanto Co.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1999
- Benton v. C. G. Willis, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.