Conwell v. Mann

100 N.C. 234
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 15, 1888·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Smith, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). While the instructions asked were not given, in very words, all that is material to the defence contained in them are embodied in the charge. For the Court told the jury, that “ if Joab Outland put William Mann in possession, telling him that it should be a home to him, as testified to by the witnesses, and further, if the plaintiff complied with the provisions of the trust deed, the defendant would be deemed, in law, the tenant of the plaintiff and estopped from disputing his title.” So the defence was distinctly put to the jury, and the appellant has no cause of complaint.

There is no error, and the judgment is affirmed.

No error. Affirmed.

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

Conwell v. Mann, 100 N.C. 234 (N.C. 1888).

100 N.C. 234 (Conwell v. Mann) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Taylor v. Johnston
224 S.E.2d 567 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1976)
Gahagan v. Gosnell
153 S.E.2d 879 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)
West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. v. Richmond Cedar Works
80 S.E.2d 665 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
Moore v. . Miller
102 S.E. 627 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1920)
Stewart v. Keener.
42 S.E. 935 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1902)
Pool v. Lamb.
37 S.E. 953 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1901)
State v. . Booker
31 S.E. 376 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1898)
Alexander v. . Gibbon
24 S.E. 748 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)
Bonds v. . Smith
11 S.E. 322 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1890)
Carlton v. Wilmington & Weldon Railroad
104 N.C. 365 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1889)
Carlton v. . R. R.
10 S.E. 516 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1889)
Mobley v. . Griffin
10 S.E. 142 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1889)