Roth v. Parsons

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Roth v. Parsons

192 S.E.2d 659, 16 N.C. App. 646, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1793

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 22, 1972

Docket7226SC609

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 192 S.E.2d 659 (Roth v. Parsons) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roth v. Parsons, 192 S.E.2d 659, 16 N.C. App. 646, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1793 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

*647 BRITT, Judge.

We hold that the court properly dismissed the third cause of action. Although appellants attempt to distinguish their case from Henson v. Thomas, 231 N.C. 173, 56 S.E. 2d 432 (1949), we think the legal principles1 in the cases are the same and that the majority opinion in Henson is controlling here. For that reason, the judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Brock concur.

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

*647 BRITT, Judge.

We hold that the court properly dismissed the third cause of action. Although appellants attempt to distinguish their case from Henson v. Thomas, 231 N.C. 173, 56 S.E. 2d 432 (1949), we think the legal principles1 in the cases are the same and that the majority opinion in Henson is controlling here. For that reason, the judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Brock concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 S.E.2d 659, 16 N.C. App. 646, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roth-v-parsons-ncctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack