Ferguson v. Rex Spinning Co.

174 S.E. 300, 206 N.C. 911, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 352
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Ferguson v. Rex Spinning Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 207 N.C. 496
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 2, 1934·Published

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

In Batson v. Launcky Co., ante, 371, is tbe following: “In tbe case at bar tbe trial judge beard no evidence and found no facts. Hence, it does not appear whether tbe merits of tbe present case are substantially identical to tbe former case or not. Therefore, tbe Court is of tbe opinion that tbe judgment dismissing tbe action upon tbe plea of estoppel, was prematurely and inadvertently made.” For tbe reasons given, tbe judgment of tbe court below is

Reversed.

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

Ferguson v. Rex Spinning Co., 174 S.E. 300, 206 N.C. 911, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 352 (N.C. 1934).

174 S.E. 300 (Ferguson v. Rex Spinning Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.