Bradshaw v. Hilton Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Bradshaw v. Hilton Lumber Co.

90 S.E. 148, 172 N.C. 222, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 270

DecidedOctober 11, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 90 S.E. 148 (Bradshaw v. Hilton Lumber Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bradshaw v. Hilton Lumber Co., 90 S.E. 148, 172 N.C. 222, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 270 (N.C. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

BnowN, J.

This case involves the same matters as are presented in the case of L. H. Bradshaw v. Hilton Lumber Company, ante, 219, except that the deed fixes 1 foot above the ground as the point where the timber is to be measured. The only other assignment of error relates to the judgment giving interest from 1907. The jury allowed interest as a part of the damage from the time when the timber was cut, as appears in their verdict. It is alleged in the complaint that the cutting was done *223 from month jto month during the year 19 07 up to and including the month of October. The cutting was denied by the defendant, but the referee found against the defendant and that the cutting.was done in 1907. The defendant did not except to this finding of the referee and his Honor adopted the finding of the referee as to the date when the cutting was done. We see no error in this.

No error.

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

BnowN, J.

This case involves the same matters as are presented in the case of L. H. Bradshaw v. Hilton Lumber Company, ante, 219, except that the deed fixes 1 foot above the ground as the point where the timber is to be measured. The only other assignment of error relates to the judgment giving interest from 1907. The jury allowed interest as a part of the damage from the time when the timber was cut, as appears in their verdict. It is alleged in the complaint that the cutting was done *223 from month jto month during the year 19 07 up to and including the month of October. The cutting was denied by the defendant, but the referee found against the defendant and that the cutting.was done in 1907. The defendant did not except to this finding of the referee and his Honor adopted the finding of the referee as to the date when the cutting was done. We see no error in this.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 S.E. 148, 172 N.C. 222, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradshaw-v-hilton-lumber-co-nc-1916.