Barbour Fur Co. v. CommisSion
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
Defendants take exception to the trial court’s construction of the North Carolina Game Law, ch. 113, Subch. Ill, Art. 7. (By Session Laws 1977, c. 712, s. 4, this Article is repealed effective July 1, 1983.) “In the interpretation of statutes the legislative will is the controlling factor,” State v. Hart, 287 N.C. 76, 80, 213 S.E. 2d 291, 294 (1975), so our function on this appeal is to determine whether the trial court correctly discerned the legislative intent.
G.S. 113-104 provides that “No person shall at any time of the year . . . possess, buy, sell, offer or expose for…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. HartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
- State v. . SizemoreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
3Cited by1 opinion
- Starry v. Horace Mann Insurance Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1982