Chapman Lumber Co. v. Benfield

19 S.E.2d 635, 221 N.C. 539, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 506
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided April 15, 1942·Published

Opinion

PeR Curiam.

Is plaintiffs’ claim, in its present form, of such nature as to create a lien upon the specific fund in the hands of the clerk ? The court below answered in favor of the plaintiff. As to the correctness of this ruling this Court (Schenck, J., not sitting) is evenly divided in opinion. Hence, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed in accord with the usual practice in such eases, and stands as the decision in this case without becoming a precedent. Howard v. Coach Co., 216 N. C., 799, 4 S. E. (2d), 449; Pafford v. Construction Co., 218 N. C., 782, 11 S. E. (2d), 548.

Affirmed.

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

Chapman Lumber Co. v. Benfield, 19 S.E.2d 635, 221 N.C. 539, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 506 (N.C. 1942).

19 S.E.2d 635 (Chapman Lumber Co. v. Benfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Howard v. Queen City Coach Co.
4 S.E.2d 616 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
State v. . Finch
11 S.E.2d 548 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Fibre Co. v. . Lee
4 S.E.2d 449 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)