Merchants National Bank v. Newton

81 S.E. 317, 165 N.C. 363, 1914 N.C. LEXIS 269
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided April 8, 1914·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Hoke, J.

A perusal of the statute will disclose that the question rests in the sound legal discretion of the court, and, as we find no such abuse of discretion on the part of his Honor as to raise a legal question for our decision, the judgment is affirmed.

We deem it not improper to say that this ruling is not to be considered as a final disposition of the matter. It is one of th'ose questions which, for good reasons shown, may be renewed in the progress of the cause, and,’ if presented under different conditions, may call for a different decision. In any event, it is open to the parties in this instance, as the court has very properly made his ruling without prejudice.

There is no error, and the judgnent of the court is

Affirmed.

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

Merchants National Bank v. Newton, 81 S.E. 317, 165 N.C. 363, 1914 N.C. LEXIS 269 (N.C. 1914).

81 S.E. 317 (Merchants National Bank v. Newton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tillis v. Calvine Cotton Mills, Inc.
94 S.E.2d 600 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
H. L. Coble Construction Co. v. Housing Authority
93 S.E.2d 98 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Star Manufacturing Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
23 S.E.2d 32 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1942)
Dunlap v. London Guaranty & Accident Co.
163 S.E. 750 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
R. R. v. . Power Co.
105 S.E. 28 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1920)
Salisbury & Spencer Railway Co. v. Southern Power Co.
180 N.C. 422 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1920)
Leroy v. . Saliba
103 S.E. 921 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1920)
Evans v. Seaboard Air Line Railway Co.
83 S.E. 617 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)