Legal Opinion

Porter v. . Armstrong

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 22, 1904PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Dissent · DouglasDouglas, J.

The plaintiff instituted this proceeding against the defendant by filing his petition in the office of the clerk of the Superior Court and issuing a summons in accordance with the provisions of chapter 30, section 1297, of the Code, alleging ownership of a tract of "swamp, flat or low land" — particularly described — known as the "Pigford farm." That the defendants were the owners of said land adjoining and "below the said Pigford farm"; that a portion of his land was ditched, cleared and under cultivation and was subject to inundation and sog. It could not be drained except by clearing or…

Also in this document: Dissent · Douglas.

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Norfleet v. CromwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874
  2. Chowan & Southern Railroad v. ParkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
  3. Holly Shelter Railroad v. NewtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
  4. American Union Telegraph Co. v. Wilmington, Columbia & Augusta RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1880
  5. Abernathy v. South & Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1908

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. Suncrest Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  2. Eagle v. New York Life InsuranceIndiana Court of Appeals · 1910
  3. Hall v. OdomSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API