Edwards v. Perry
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.
The consent order entered at the December Term, 1933, which provided for a jury trial upon certain issues, would seem to be valid. Deaver v. Jones, 114 N. C., 649, 19 S. E., 637, Stump v. Long, 84 N. C., 616. True, it could not have been entered except by consent. Driller Co. v. Worth, 117 N. C., 515, 23 S. E., 427; Lance v. Russell, *475157 N. C., 448, 73 S. E., 151; Flemming v. Roberts, 77 N. C., 415. But baying been entered by consent of tbe parties and without objection, it became a valid order in tbe cause. Weaver v. Hampton, 204 N. C., 42, 167 S. E., 484; Morisey v. Swinson, 104 N. C.,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Keystone Driller Co. v. WorthSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1895
- State v. . LeaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
- Caldwell v. . CaldwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- A. H. Stump & Sons v. LongSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
- Morisey v. . SwinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Coburn v. Roanoke Land and Timber CorporationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- East Coast Fertilizer Co. v. HardeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- Edwards v. . PerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
- Franklin v. Crossnore SchoolSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938