Russell v. . Boone
125 S.E. 926, 188 N.C. 830, 1924 N.C. LEXIS 215
Opinion
Tbe following were tbe issues submitted to tbe jury, and tbe answers thereto:
“1. Did tbe defendants, or either of them, negligently fail to perform their duties as directors of tbe Bank of Denton, as alleged in tbe complaint; and, if so, which ones? Answer: ‘Yes.’
“2. If so, did tbe plaintiffs sustain damage thereby, as alleged in tbe complaint? Answer: ‘Yes.’
“3. What amount are tbe plaintiffs entitled to recover? Answer: ‘$824.39.’ ”
We have examined tbe record, exceptions, assignments of error, and able briefs of tbe attorneys, and can find no prejudicial or reversible error.
Tbe cause was tried out on tbe principle laid down in Houston v. Thornton, 122 N. C., p. 365.
We can find
No error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Russell v. . Boone, 125 S.E. 926, 188 N.C. 830, 1924 N.C. LEXIS 215 (N.C. 1924).
125 S.E. 926 (Russell v. . Boone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Minnis v. . Sharpe
151 S.E. 735 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1930)
Bane v. . Powell
135 S.E. 118 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1926)
Douglass v. . Dawson
130 S.E. 195 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)