Barnett v. City of Elizabeth City

222 N.C. 760
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 24, 1943·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A careful perusal of tbe record leaves us with tbe impression tbat tbe demurrer to tbe evidence was properly sustained, if not upon tbe principal issue of liability, Houston v. Monroe, 213 N. C., 788, [761]*761197 S. E., 571; Pace v. Charlotte, 221 N. C., 245, 19 S. E. (2d), 871, then for failure to give written notice of claim as required by tbe city charter. Trust Co. v. Asheville, 207 N. C., 162, 176 S. E., 257; Pender v. Salisbury, 160 N. C., 363, 76 S. E., 228. In either event, the result is an affirmance of the judgment of nonsuit.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Barnett v. City of Elizabeth City, 222 N.C. 760 (N.C. 1943).

222 N.C. 760 (Barnett v. City of Elizabeth City) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Virginia Trust Co. v. City of Asheville
176 S.E. 257 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
Pender v. City of Salisbury
76 S.E. 228 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1912)
Houston v. City of Monroe
197 S.E. 571 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Page v. . Charlotte
19 S.E.2d 871 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
Pace v. City of Charlotte
221 N.C. 245 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)