Futrell v. . Deanes

20 S.E. 1013, 116 N.C. 38
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 5, 1895
StatusPublished

This text of 20 S.E. 1013 (Futrell v. . Deanes) 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
Futrell v. . Deanes, 20 S.E. 1013, 116 N.C. 38 (N.C. 1895).

Opinion

It appears from the record that the only question was, which party should pay the costs. Such questions are not considered in this Court. S.v. R. R., 74 N.C. 287; Hasty v. Funderburk, 89 N.C. 93.

Appeal dismissed.

Cited: Elliott v. Tyson, post, 184; Monroe v. Angel, post, 847; Elliottv. Tyson, 117 N.C. 115; Herring v. Pugh, 125 N.C. 438; Van Dyke v. Ins.Co., 174 N.C. 81.

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

Related

State v. . R. R.
74 N.C. 287 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1876)
Elliott v. . Tyson
23 S.E. 102 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1895)
Hasty v. . Funderburk
89 N.C. 93 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1883)
VanDyke v. Ætna Life Insurance
93 S.E. 444 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 S.E. 1013, 116 N.C. 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/futrell-v-deanes-nc-1895.