Legal Opinion

Deitz v. . Bolch

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 22, 1936PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDevin, J.

The original judgment in this cause, rendered by Judge Warlick at the September Term, 1933, of Catawba Superior Court, was a consent judgment, signed not only by counsel but also personally by the plaintiff and each of the defendants.

The judgment rendered by Judge Harding at the September Term, 1934, also purports to be a consent judgment and is signed by counsel for plaintiff and by “D. Locke Russell, attorney for defendant Bolch,” and by Thos. P. Pruitt, attorney for defendant Setzer.

The last mentioned judgment, entered at the September Term, 1934, is challenged by defendant Bolch on the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Gardiner v. MaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
  2. McEachern v. . KerchnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
  3. Edney v. . EdneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1879
  4. Southern Chemical Co. v. BassSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
  5. Cox v. . BoydenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance v. KinslerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  2. King v. . KingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  3. Pack v. NewmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  4. Town of Bath v. NormanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
  5. State v. BarleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954

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