Maley v. Thomasville Furniture Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.
The appeal of defendants is based on exceptions to tbe admission of evidence wbicb they contend is hearsay and incompetent, and which, if excluded, would, as they contend, leave no competent evidence upon which the Commission’s findings of fact and award could be legally based; and to the findings of fact and the award. Reed v. Lavender Bros., 206 N. C., 898, 172 S. E., 877; Perdue v. State Board of Equalization, 205 N. C., 730, 172 S. E., 396. Plaintiffs contend that competent evidence relating to the accident and injury existed, and that this may be corroborated, supplemented, or explained…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
- United States & Interstate Commerce Commission v. Abilene & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1924
- Tagg Bros. & Moorhead v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. BairdSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- American Furniture Co. v. GravesSupreme Court of Virginia · 1925
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Kisiah v. W.R. Kisiah Plumbing, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
- Belfield v. Weyerhaeuser Co.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- Nello L. Teer Co. v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- State v. FuquaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- State v. BryantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.