Roland v. Railway Express Agency
161 S.E. 483, 201 N.C. 815, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 109
Opinion
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that their agent was authorized by defendants to procure the warrant on which plaintiff was arrested and prosecuted, or that defendants ratified the action of their agent in procuring the warrant and prosecuting the plaintiff, this action was properly dismissed. Lamm v. Charles Stores Co., ante, 134, 159 S. E., 444. The judgment is
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Roland v. Railway Express Agency, 161 S.E. 483, 201 N.C. 815, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 109 (N.C. 1931).
161 S.E. 483 (Roland v. Railway Express Agency) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Pridgen v. Carolina Coach Co.
47 S.E.2d 609 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)