Coral Gables, Inc., v. Ayres

8 Citing cases

  1. State v. Clayton

    251 N.C. 261 (N.C. 1959)   Cited 10 times
    In State v. Clayton, 1959, 251 N.C. 261, 111 S.E.2d 299, there is a lengthy discussion regarding the action of the State in causing a dismissal of the cases in the Recorder's Court of Vance County and then proceeding against the petitioners in the Superior Court.

    Service of defendant's statement of the case on appeal to the Supreme Court was accepted by counsel for the State, and as counsel for the State filed no objections or exceptions thereto, or any constitutes the case on appeal to the Supreme Court. G.S. 1-282; Coral Gables, Inc. v. Ayres, 208 N.C. 426, 181 S.E. 263. In reference to the above motion, these facts appear from the case on appeal, and from a stipulation entered into between counsel for the State and the defendant:

  2. Bumgardner v. Groover

    95 S.E.2d 101 (N.C. 1956)   Cited 2 times

    If the plaintiff brings an action to foreclose the deed of trusts or if Barney Lee Groover and wife bring an action to cancel the note and deed of trust, then the question as to whether the alleged parol agreement, if there was one, runs counter to the terms of the written instruments, and all other attendant questions, can be presented for decision. See Coral Gables, Inc. v. Ayres, 208 N.C. 426, 181 S.E. 263; Stanback v. Haywood, 209 N.C. 798, 184 S.E. 831. Accepting the allegations of the second further answer and defense as true, it alleges no defense to plaintiff's cause of action in the instant case.

  3. McGowan v. Beach

    86 S.E.2d 763 (N.C. 1955)   Cited 16 times
    In McGowan v. Beach, 242 N.C. 73, 86 S.E.2d 763 (1955), the court held that when "a seal appear[s] upon an instrument, opposite the name of the maker, in the place where the seal belongs, [it] will in the absence of proof that the maker intended otherwise, be valid as a seal."

    Moreover, counsel for defendant in the oral argument before this Court admitted that the questions now urged with respect to the seal were not raised in the trial below. "An appeal ex necessitate follows the theory of the trial" — Stacy, C.J., in Coral Gables, Inc., v. Ayres, 208 N.C. 426, 181 S.E. 263. See also Hargett v. Lee, 206 N.C. 536, 174 S.E. 498, and Potts v. Insurance Co., 206 N.C. 257, 174 S.E. 123.

  4. In re Parker

    209 N.C. 693 (N.C. 1936)   Cited 23 times

    An appeal ex necessitate follows the theory of the trial. Coral Gables v. Ayres, 208 N.C. 426; Weil v. Herring, 207 N.C. 6, 175 S.E. 836; Hargett v. Lee, 206 N.C. 536, 174 S.E. 498; Holland v. Dulin, 206 N.C. 211, 173 S.E. 310. The case then comes to a single question: Shall the respondent be disbarred by the statutory method?

  5. Insurance Co. v. Morehead

    209 N.C. 174 (N.C. 1936)   Cited 49 times

    It is well-nigh axiomatic that no verbal agreement between the parties to a written contract, made before or at the time of the execution of such contract, is admissible to vary its terms or to contradict its provisions. Dawson v. Wright, 208 N.C. 418, 181 S.E. 264; Coral Gables v. Ayres, 208 N.C. 426, 181 S.E. 263; Carlton v. Oil Co., 206 N.C. 117, 172 S.E. 883; Overall Co. v. Hollister, 186 N.C. 208, 119 S.E. 1; Ray v. Blackwell, 94 N.C. 10. As against the recollection of the parties, whose memories may fail them, the written word abides. Walker v. Venters, 148 N.C. 388, 62 S.E. 510. The rule undoubtedly makes for the sanctity and security of contracts.

  6. Manufacturing Co. v. McCormick

    175 N.C. 277 (N.C. 1918)   Cited 22 times
    In Manufacturing Co. v. McCormick, 175 N.C. 277, 95 S.E. 555 (1918), we held that it was necessary to have the consent of an insured although the person applying for a life insurance policy had an insurable interest in the insured's life.

    Reversed. Cited: Mills v. Walker, 179 N.C. 484; Thomas v. Carteret, 182 N.C. 379; Slayton v. Commissioners, 186 N.C. 695; Hooper v. Trust Co., 190 N.C. 427; Roebuck v. Carson, 196 N.C. 674; Warren v. Bottling Co., 204 N.C. 125; Trust Co. v. Wilder, 206 N.C. 125; Coral Gables, Inc. v. Ayres, 208 N.C. 426; Coleman v. Whisnant, 226 N.C. 259.

  7. Marcom v. R. R

    81 S.E. 290 (N.C. 1914)   Cited 8 times

    New trial. Cited: Coal Co. v. Fain, 171 N.C. 647 (1b); Lumber Co. v. Lumber Co., 176 N.C. 503 (1p); S. v. Fulcher, 176 N.C. 730 (1b); In re Hinton, 180 N.C. 215 (1b); Parks v. Trust Co., 195 N.C. 455 (1f); S. v. Lee, 196 N.C. 716 (1f); Metts v. Ins. Co., 198 N.C. 200 (1f); Calhoun v. Highway Com., 208 N.C. 426 (1f).

  8. Wood v. Land Co.

    81 S.E. 422 (N.C. 1914)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that the defendants, were, “as agents of the city, only doing a lawful thing in a lawful way, and, if harm came to plaintiff's property under such circumstances, it must be considered as damnum absque injuria, and giving him no legal right to redress.”

    Affirmed. Cited: Crotts v. Winston-Salem, 170 N.C. 27 (g); Bennett v. R. R., 170 N.C. 392 (1); Lumber Co. v. Drainage Comrs., 174 N.C. 650 (g); Keener v. Asheville, 177 N.C. 5 (b); Powell v. R.R., 178 N.C. 247 (1); Milling Co. v. Highway Com., 190 N.C. 699 (1); Calhoun v. Highway Com., 208 N.C. 426 (g). (372)