Town of Durham v. Richmond & Danville Railroad

18 S.E. 208, 113 N.C. 240
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 5, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

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.

Bluebook
Town of Durham v. Richmond & Danville Railroad, 18 S.E. 208, 113 N.C. 240 (N.C. 1893).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

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

Lynch v. Hazelwood
324 S.E.2d 224 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1985)
Switzerland Co. v. . Highway Commission
5 S.E.2d 327 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Switzerland Co. v. North Carolina State Highway & Public Works Commission
216 N.C. 450 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Seay v. . Insurance Co.
179 S.E. 888 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Seay v. Sentinel Life Insurance
208 N.C. 832 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)
Veolay, Inc. v. United States
21 C.C.P.A. 268 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1933)
Mfg. Co. v. . Mfg. Co.
159 S.E. 411 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
Hunter Manufacturing & Commission Co. v. Leak Manufacturing Co.
201 N.C. 823 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
McCarter v. . R. R.
123 S.E. 926 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)
Jenkins v. Suncrest Lumber Co.
123 S.E. 82 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)
McCarter v. Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Railway Co.
187 N.C. 863 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1924)
Robertson v. Mississippi Valley Co.
81 So. 799 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1919)
Miller v. Bank of Washington
96 S.E. 977 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1918)
City of Kalamazoo v. Crawford
117 N.W. 572 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1908)
Boone v. . Peebles
36 S.E. 193 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1900)
Bank v. . Burlington
32 S.E. 558 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1899)
Puryear v. . Lynch
28 S.E. 410 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
Whichard v. Wilmington & Weldon Railroad
23 S.E. 437 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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.