State ex rel. Joyner v. Roberts
114 N.C. 389
Opinion
There was error on the part of the Judge in leaving the question of reasonable inquiry to the jury. Emry v. Railroad, 109 N. C., 589. As the case goes back for a new trial it is proper to say that if the circumstances testified to by the defendant and the witness Futrell are true, then, under our authorities, the defendant would have made such reasonable inquiry as is contemplated by the statute. New Trial.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State ex rel. Joyner v. Roberts, 114 N.C. 389 (N.C. 1894).
114 N.C. 389 (State ex rel. Joyner v. Roberts) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Lemmons v. . Sigman
106 S.E. 764 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)
Julian v. . Daniels
95 S.E. 907 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1918)
Gray v. . Lentz
91 S.E. 1024 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1917)
Joyner v. . Harris
72 S.E. 970 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1911)
Laney v. . MacKey
57 S.E. 386 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
Furr v. Johnson.
52 S.E. 664 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1905)
Trolinger v. Boroughs.
45 S.E. 662 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1903)
Harcum v. Marsh.
41 S.E. 6 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1902)
Chesson v. John L. Roper Lumber Co.
23 S.E. 925 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)