Legal Opinion

Maynard v. . Holder

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 30, 1941PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtScheNCK, J.

The charge of the court is not contained in the record and is therefore assumed to be free from prejudicial error. Hornthal v. R. R., 167 N. C., 627, 82 S. E., 830.

The assignments of error brought forward in the brief of the plaintiffs, appellants, are‘all addressed to the admission of certain testimony over objection of the plaintiffs.

The first exceptive assignment of error is addressed to a portion of the testimony of Mrs. Geneva Martin Holder, one of the defendants, and widow of T. Quincy Holder, by whose will she claimed a life estate in the land in controversy, and appears from the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hornthal v. Norfolk Southern RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. . SullivanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  2. State v. GaskillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  3. State v. SearsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
  4. Cato v. . Hospital Care AssociationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  5. Dillingham v. KligermanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952

3 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