Silver Valley Mining Co. v. Baltimore Mining Co.

8 S.E. 361, 101 N.C. 679
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided September 5, 1888·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Smith, C. J.

This appeal has been retained for several terms under an adversari, while the subject matter has been fully considered in the opinion heretofore delivered in the decision of the defendant’s appeal. Silver Valley Co. v. Baltimore Co., 99 N. C., 445. After due consideration, and in view of what is there said, our conclusion is that no error is disclosed in the ruling from which the present appeal is taken, and therefore we affirm, the .judgment.

Affirmed.

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

Silver Valley Mining Co. v. Baltimore Mining Co., 8 S.E. 361, 101 N.C. 679 (N.C. 1888).

8 S.E. 361 (Silver Valley Mining Co. v. Baltimore Mining Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lanier v. . Pullman Co.
105 S.E. 21 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1920)