Legal Opinion

Thompson v. . Shepherd

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 12, 1932PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClarkson, J.

We think the main exception and assignment of error, made by plaintiff and determinative of this controversy: Did the court below err in refusing plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence? We cannot so hold.

In Hill v. Lumber Co., 113 N. C., at p. 116, we find: “Neither can there be any doubt that the capital stock and property of the corporation, in case of its insolvency, constitute a fund, first for the satisfaction of its creditors, and next for the shareholders.”

The principle is thus stated in Wall v. Rothrock, 171 N. C., at p. 391: “There is no doubt that…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Pender v. . SpeightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
  2. Green River Manufacturing Co. v. BellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  3. Highland Cotton Mills v. Ragan Knitting Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  4. Weaver Power Co. v. Elk Mountain Mill Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
  5. Gilmore v. . SmathersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Aydlett v. . Major Loomis Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  2. Meiselman v. MeiselmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  3. Meiselman v. MeiselmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API