From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Russell v. Boone

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Nov 1, 1924
125 S.E. 926 (N.C. 1924)

Opinion

(Filed 19 November, 1924.)

APPEAL by defendants from Lane, J., and a jury, at February Term, 1924, of DAVIDSON.

Phillips Bower and Holton Holton for plaintiffs.

Raper Raper, J. R. McCrary, and J. M. Durant, Jr., for defendants.


The following were the issues submitted to the jury, and the answers thereto:

"1. Did the defendants, or either of them, negligently fail to perform their duties as directors of the Bank of Denton, as alleged in the complaint; and, if so, which ones? Answer: `Yes.'

"2. If so, did the plaintiffs sustain damage thereby, as alleged in the complaint? Answer: `Yes.'

"3. What amount are the plaintiffs entitled to recover? Answer: `$824.39.'"

We have examined the record, exceptions, assignments of error, and able briefs of the attorneys, and can find no prejudicial or reversible error.

The cause was tried out on the principle laid down in Houston v. Thornton, 122 N.C. p. 365.

We can find

No error.


Summaries of

Russell v. Boone

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Nov 1, 1924
125 S.E. 926 (N.C. 1924)
Case details for

Russell v. Boone

Case Details

Full title:T. C. RUSSELL AND C. W. RUSSELL, TRADING AS DENTON MARBLE WORKS, v. W. E…

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Nov 1, 1924

Citations

125 S.E. 926 (N.C. 1924)
125 S.E. 926

Citing Cases

Minnis v. Sharpe

They are liable for their torts regardless of whether the corporation is liable. . . . (p. 3772). It is no…

Douglass v. Dawson

" The judgment in Russell v. Boone, 188 N.C. 830, was affirmed, no error having been found upon appeal. This…