Legal Opinion

Deese v. . Collins

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 12, 1926PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtConnor, J.

The sole question presented by this appeal, as stated in appellant’s brief, is whether a false statement made by defendant that plaintiff has negro blood in his veins, is actionable per se under the law. of this State. Unless this question be answered in the affirmative, no action for damages can be maintained therefor, without allegation and proof of special damages resulting from the false statement. On the contrary, if the words are actionable per se the plaintiff is required neither to allege nor prove damages; the law presumes damages, as necessarily resulting from the false statement.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Baker v. WinslowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  2. Jones v. . BrinkleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
  3. Cotton v. Fisheries Products Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
  4. Hadley v. . TinninSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  5. Payne v. . ThomasSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Flake Ex Rel. Flake v. Greensboro News Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  2. Badame v. LampkeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  3. Williams v. Rutherford Freight Lines, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
  4. Oates v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  5. Scott v. . HarrisonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939

7 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