State Ex Rel. Lippard v. Roseman
70 N.C. 34
Opinion
The facts of this case do not materially differ 'from those stated in the opinion of the Court in the preceding case of Armfield v. Brown.
*35 As we there held that ch. §9, sec. 2, of the acts of 1866-’67 by virtue of which, a trial 'by jury was demanded, had been .repealed, that case is decisive of this and for the reasons there ■stated, the judgment ef the Coart below is affirmed.
The case is remanded, to be proceeded with, according to the course of the Court.
Pee Cttkiak. Judgment accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State Ex Rel. Lippard v. Roseman, 70 N.C. 34 (N.C. 1874).
70 N.C. 34 (State Ex Rel. Lippard v. Roseman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Mayo v. Commissioners of Washington
40 L.R.A. 163 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1898)
Keystone Driller Co. v. Worth
23 S.E. 427 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1895)
Overby v. Fayetteville Building & Loan Ass'n
81 N.C. 56 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1879)
State Ex Rel . Lippard v. . Roseman
72 N.C. 427 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1875)