Ellison v. Hunsinger
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtParker, J.
Each state has the right to regulate the transfer of property within its limits. The prevailing modern theory is that the law of the situs in general controls transfers of personalty. All the transactions between the plaintiff Ellison and Hunsinger occurred in South Carolina; the 43 bales of cotton were situated in South Carolina; according to Hun-singer’s representations, Ellison was to be paid by Cooley’s cheque; Cooley lived in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Hunsinger obtained possession of the 43 bales of cotton from Ellison by the crime of false pretense — to which crime he pleaded guilty,…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Northern Pacific Railroad v. BabcockSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Dows v. National Exchange Bank of MilwaukeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Cox v. City of KinstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- Bickett v. State Tax CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
- Price v. . GoodmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Boudreau v. BaughmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
- Williams v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2014
- Davis v. DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- Associated Creditors' Agency v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
- Hawkins v. M & J FINANCE CORP.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.