Rigo Manufacturing Co. v. Pridgen
215 N.C. 247
This text of 215 N.C. 247 (Rigo Manufacturing Co. v. Pridgen) 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
Rigo Manufacturing Co. v. Pridgen, 215 N.C. 247 (N.C. 1939).
Opinion
As plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of notice set out in each hill of lading and designated “as a condition precedent to recovery,” its action against the carrier was properly dismissed. St. Sing v. Express Co., 183 N. C., 405, 111 S. E., 710; Culbreth v. R. R., 169 N. C., 723, 86 S. E., 624.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Culbreth v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
86 S.E. 624 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1915)
St. Sing v. American Railway Express Co.
111 S.E. 710 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1922)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
215 N.C. 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rigo-manufacturing-co-v-pridgen-nc-1939.