Legal Opinion

Michaux v. Paul Rubber Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 2, 1925PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtYabsee, J.

Tbe defendant Barringer assigns error for that he offered to admit in due time that the $3,000 note had been “executed and induced by the false and fraudulent representations of the defendant Paul Rubber Company and its agents,” and asked for the opening and conclusion of the argument. The request was denied. This assignment of error is not sustained. Rules of Practice in the Superior Court, 6, 185 N. C., 808.

The defendant introduced evidence' in his behalf and therefore did not come within Rule 3, 185 N. C., 807, and the disposition of the question as to who should open and conclude the…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Bost v. . BostSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
  2. Barnhardt v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1882
  3. State v. Ledford.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
  4. Lunn v. . ShermerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1885
  5. Lewis v. . FountainSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. In Re Will of HallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  2. R. R. v. . Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  3. Calhoun v. State Highway & Public Works CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
  4. Bass Ex Rel. Bass v. HocuttSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  5. Dinkins v. BooeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960

6 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