Martin Ex Rel. Martin v. Reidsville Motor Co.
This text of 161 S.E. 77 (Martin Ex Rel. Martin v. Reidsville Motor 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.
Opinion
Conceding, without deciding, that the criminal action against the plaintiff was instituted for retaliatory purposes only, nevertheless there is no evidence of any act done therein contrary to the orderly and regular prosecution of the case. Stanford v. Grocery Co., 143 N. C., 419, 55 S. E., 815.
The case of Lockhart v. Bear, 117 N. C., 298, 23 S. E., 484, cited and relied upon by the plaintiff, was decided upon a demurrer to the complaint, rather than on a demurrer to the evidence, and is quite different in the facts alleged.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
161 S.E. 77, 201 N.C. 641, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 57, 704 N.C. 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-ex-rel-martin-v-reidsville-motor-co-nc-1931.