Thompson v. . Shepherd
Supreme Court of North Carolina
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
- Pender v. . SpeightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
- Green River Manufacturing Co. v. BellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
- Highland Cotton Mills v. Ragan Knitting Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
- Weaver Power Co. v. Elk Mountain Mill Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
- Gilmore v. . SmathersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
3Cited by3 opinions
- Aydlett v. . Major Loomis Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
- Meiselman v. MeiselmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- Meiselman v. MeiselmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983