Legal Opinion

Central National Bank of Richmond v. Rich

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 2, 1962Published

1Opinion of the CourtRodman, J.

Defendant assigns as error the court’s charge as given and the failure of the judge to apply the law to the facts. The record does not disclose any real conflict with respect to the facts. The disagreement arises with respect to the law applicable to the facts.

The factual situation to which it was the duty of the court to declare the law may be summarized thus: C & B Buick Company (hereafter C & B) was, in 1957, a licensed automobile dealer at Louisburg, N. C., selling Buick automobiles. On 27 August 1957 C & B sold the automobile in question to Samuel R. Hubbard, Jr. His brother, Walter…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Thomas v. MullinsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1929
  2. Holt Motors, Inc. v. CastoWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Nationwide Insurance v. StormSupreme Court of Virginia · 1959
  4. General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. DavisSupreme Court of Kansas · 1950
  5. Wilson v. Commercial Finance Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1954

14 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