Rigo Manufacturing Co. v. Pridgen
215 N.C. 247
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
Rigo Manufacturing Co. v. Pridgen, 215 N.C. 247 (N.C. 1939).
215 N.C. 247 (Rigo Manufacturing Co. v. Pridgen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
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)