Alexander v. Cedar Works

8 Citing cases

  1. Branch v. Seitz

    138 S.E.2d 493 (N.C. 1964)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that the trial court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence where such evidence consisted of two affidavits tending to contradict the defendant's testimony and corroborate the plaintiff's testimony

    Plaintiff moves in this Court for a new trial for newly discovered evidence. The evidence on which she relies is the same relied on in the motion made in the Superior Court. What must be shown to justify this Court in awarding a new trial is stated in Alexander v. Cedar Works, 177 N.C. 536, 98 S.E. 780, cited by movant. We have examined the affidavits on which movant relies.

  2. State v. Todd

    224 N.C. 776 (N.C. 1944)   Cited 7 times
    In State v. Todd, 224 N.C. 776, 32 S.E.2d 313 (1944), the State appealed and petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the trial court granting a convicted defendant a new trial on the basis of newly-discovered evidence.

    The case is not one in which the alleged error appears on the face of the record proper, which might be corrected in our supervisory power, Const., Art. IV, sec. 8, S. v. Lawrence, 81 N.C. 522, but it is to review a ruling of the court entered on motion after trial. Alexander v. Cedar Works, 177 N.C. 536, 98 S.E. 780. This would require a "postea or case to be made up."

  3. Wynne v. Conrad

    220 N.C. 355 (N.C. 1941)   Cited 17 times

    "Laches" is negligence consisting in omission of something which a party might do and might reasonably be expected to do towards vindication or enforcement of his rights, being generally a synonym of "remissness," "dilatoriness," "unreasonable or unexcused delay," the opposite of "vigilance," and means a want of activity and diligence in making a claim or moving for the enforcement of a right, particularly in equity, which will afford ground for presuming against it or for refusing relief where that is discretionary with the court, but laches presupposes, not only lapse of time, but also the existence of circumstances which render negligence imputable. Alexander v. Cedar Works, 177 N.C. 536. The plaintiff's leniency with defendant was commendable, but he started a lawsuit and should not have waited for over ten years to see what had happened to it.

  4. State v. Davis

    203 N.C. 316 (N.C. 1932)   Cited 35 times

    We have held that such application is a motion after trial, and may be resorted to only to prevent a probable or manifest injustice and wrong. Alexander v. Cedar Works, 177 N.C. 536, 98 S.E. 780. 10.

  5. State v. Casey

    201 N.C. 620 (N.C. 1931)   Cited 62 times
    In S. v. Casey, 201 N.C. 620, 161 S.E. 81, it is said, "unless the case is kept alive by appeal, such motion can be entertained only at the trial term."

    In other words, laches must be negatived and probable or manifest injustice shown. Alexander v. Cedar Works, 177 N.C. 536, 98 S.E. 780; Wilkie v. R. R., 127 N.C. 203, 37 S.E. 204; Carson v. Dellinger, 90 N.C. 226. To do justly is the goal of the courts in every case, but this does not mean to favor the negligent at the expense of the diligent party.

  6. Connor v. Manufacturing Company

    197 N.C. 66 (N.C. 1929)   Cited 4 times

    It is doubtful whether, upon a new trial, the newly discovered evidence, would cause a different result from that of which plaintiff now complains. Alexander v. Richmond Cedar Works, 177 N.C. 536, 98 S.E. 780. The judgment is affirmed. We find

  7. Scales v. Wall

    140 S.E. 80 (N.C. 1927)   Cited 1 times

    At best it tends only to contradict the plaintiff and to corroborate the defendant, both of whom testified at the trial. See Alexander v. Cedar Works, 177 N.C. 536. The rule there stated is as follows: "The Supreme Court will not order a new trial for newly discovered evidence that is merely cumulative, or without probability that the result will thereby be changed."

  8. Locklear v. Snow

    168 S.E.2d 445 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 1 times

    Johnson v. R. R., supra. In the case of Alexander v. Cedar Works, 177 N.C. 536, 98 S.E. 780 (1919), we find the following language: "But we put our decision chiefly upon the ground that a want of laches has not been sufficiently shown.