Greer v. Bank of Damascus

162 S.E. 233, 202 N.C. 220, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 463
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 27, 1932·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

This controversy was here before — In re Bauguess, 196 N. C., 278. The plaintiffs only contend that they can recover $3,000 and interest. Why, therefore, compel defendants to pay $7,000 into court? We think in the interest of justice the court should not have ordered more than $3,000 and interest, the amount plaintiffs sue for, to be paid into court. It was discretionary for the court below to withdraw a juror. Wolf v. Goldstein, 192 N. C., 818; S. v. Guice, 201 N. C., 761. The ordering of $7,000 to be paid into court affected a substantial right.

In modifying and affirming this judgment, we do not desire it to be understood that the other questions appearing of record were considered, that arose on the trial in the court below. They are not passed on or decided on this appeal. The judgment is

Modified and affirmed.

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

Greer v. Bank of Damascus, 162 S.E. 233, 202 N.C. 220, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 463 (N.C. 1932).

162 S.E. 233 (Greer v. Bank of Damascus) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Drake
229 S.E.2d 51 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1976)