Ferguson v. Rex Spinning Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Ferguson v. Rex Spinning Co.

174 S.E. 300, 206 N.C. 911, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 352

DecidedMay 2, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 174 S.E. 300 (Ferguson v. Rex Spinning 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 S.E. 300, 206 N.C. 911, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferguson-v-rex-spinning-co-nc-1934.