Legal Opinion

Lowder v. . Smith

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 18, 1931PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClaRksoN, J.

We do not think that the exceptions and assignments of error made by plaintiff can be sustained. We do not think, from the facts appearing of record, that plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial.

Defendant contends that “In March, 1913, Charlie Harward, the arbitrator selected by Lindsay Lowder, the ancestor of the plaintiff, and by George E. Smith, together with the chain carriers, selected and paid by each, went upon the ground in the presence of the parties and took all the papers of each of the parties, and determined, surveyed and fixed and marked plainly tbe dividing line in the presence…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Simon v. . MastersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
  2. Wood v. . HughesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  3. Winstead v. . FarmerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  4. Wright v. Phillips Fertilizer Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Cornelison v. . HammondSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  2. Andrews v. AndrewsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  3. Smith v. DighCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970

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

Powered by the Exa API