From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Campbell v. Hood, Commissioner of Banks

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Apr 1, 1932
163 S.E. 925 (N.C. 1932)

Opinion

(Filed 27 April, 1932.)

Appeal and Error J d — Where Court is evenly divided judgment will be affirmed.

Where on appeal the Supreme Court is evenly divided in opinion, one Justice not sitting, the judgment will be affirmed without becoming a precedent.

APPEAL by petitioner from Barnhill, J., at October Term, 1931, of NEW HANOVER. Affirmed.

Bryan Campbell for petitioner.

Woodus Kellum for respondent.


From judgment that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for in his petition, the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.


Stacy, C. J., not sitting at the hearing of this appeal, and the Associate Justice being evenly divided in opinion as to whether there is error in the judgment, the judgment is affirmed. The decision does not become a precedent. Nebel v. Nebel, 201 N.C. 840, 161 S.E. 223.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Campbell v. Hood, Commissioner of Banks

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Apr 1, 1932
163 S.E. 925 (N.C. 1932)
Case details for

Campbell v. Hood, Commissioner of Banks

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM B. CAMPBELL v. GURNEY P. HOOD, COMMISSIONER OF BANKS, AND ROBERT…

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Apr 1, 1932

Citations

163 S.E. 925 (N.C. 1932)
163 S.E. 925