TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Citizens National Bank v. Florida-Carolina Estates, Inc.

Citizens National Bank v. Florida-Carolina Estates, Inc., and H. Walter Fuller.

Citizens Nat'l Bank v. Fla.-Carolina Estates, Inc., 157 S.E. 424 (N.C. 1931)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 18, 1931
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
157 S.E. 424200 N.C. 4801931 N.C. LEXIS 366

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

Exceptions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are taken to certain questions and answers witb respect to indebtedness due by tbe Laurel Park Estates to tbe Fleetwood of Hendersonville Hotel Corporation. These exceptions cannot be sustained. While technically tbe questions might not have been competent, it appears upon tbe record on page twenty-three tbe defendant Fuller was asked substantially tbe same questions without objection, in which be stated that tbe Fleetwood of Hender-sonville Corporation claimed that. tbe Laurel Park Estates was indebted to it. Furthermore it appears that tbe Fleetwood Corporation and Laurel Park Estates were for all practical purposes interlocking corporations.

Other exceptions are addressed to tbe charge of tbe court on tbe issue of fraud. Such exceptions are based upon tbe theory that tbe trial judge unduly emphasized tbe issue of fraud, but tbe record discloses that there was no exception to submitting an issue of fraud and that tbe defendants admitted liability unless “tbe issue of fraud is answered in their favor.” Thus, fraud constituted tbe defense relied upon to defeat recovery, and there is nothing in tbe record to indicate that tbe trial judge abused bis discretion in tbe manner of arraying contentions or stating propositions of law.

Exception was also taken to tbe statement of a contention by tbe trial judge witb respect to two checks which were marked Exhibits H and I. If tbe trial judge stated tbe contentions incorrectly, it was tbe duty of tbe defendant to call bis attention to tbe matter in order that be might have an opportunity to make necessary corrections.

Exception was also taken to tbe fact that tbe trial judge of bis own motion recalled tbe jury and gave additional instructions during tbe absence of counsel. It is not contended that tbe supplemental instructions were incorrect. Hence, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that it is error for a judge to recall a jury in bis discretion and to give such additional instructions as be may deem wise and proper.

A careful examination of the record and briefs fails to convince tbe Court that error was committed in tbe trial.

No error.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1933: 11953: 119332026peak 1933 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hunt ex rel. Hunt v. Wooten76 S.E.2d 326 (N.C. 1953)
  2. Burns ex rel. Burns v. North State Laundry, Inc.167 S.E. 573 (N.C. 1933)

Most recent

  1. Hunt ex rel. Hunt v. Wooten76 S.E.2d 326 (N.C. 1953)
  2. Burns ex rel. Burns v. North State Laundry, Inc.167 S.E. 573 (N.C. 1933)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list