Town of Durham v. Richmond & Danville Railroad
This text of 18 S.E. 208 (Town of Durham v. Richmond & Danville Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In this case both the plaintiff and defendants appealed. Mr. Justice Burwell did not sit, and the Court is evenly divided. The appeals have now been standing on *241 this docket four terras. Under these circumstances, following the uniform practice of appellate Courts in such cases, the judgment below stands, not os a precedent, but as the decision in this case. Marshall, C. J., in Etting v. Bank, 11 Wheat., 59; TaNEY, C. J., in Benton v. Woolsey, 12 Pet., 27, and in Holmes v. Jenison, 14 Peters, 540; Washington v. Stewart, 3 Howard, 413, 424; Chase, C. J., in Reeside v. Reeside, 8 Wall., 302; Durant v. Essex Co., 8 Allen (Mass.), 103; 85 American Dec., 685. The appellauts will respectively pay the costs, each in their own appeal.
Plaintiff’s appeal affirmed.
Defendants’ appeal affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
18 S.E. 208, 113 N.C. 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-of-durham-v-richmond-danville-railroad-nc-1893.