Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Wilder v. Lee

2 Citing cases

  1. Walker v. Gurley

    83 N.C. 429 (N.C. 1880)   Cited 4 times

    A party to an action is not entitled to an injunction against execution on a judgment which might have been set aside by motion in due time under section 133 of the code. ( Wilder v. Lee, 64 N.C. 50; Heilig v. Stokes, 63 N.C. 612; Capehart v. Mhoon, Busb. Eq. 30, cited and approved) MOTION by defendant to vacate an injunction heard at Chambers on the 28th of January, 1880, (in an action pending in McDOWELL Superior Court) before Avery, J.

  2. Atkin v. Mooney

    61 N.C. 31 (N.C. 1866)   Cited 8 times
    In Atkin v. Mooney, 61 N.C. 31, it was said that collecting officer was authorized to receive, without instructions to the contrary, whatever was current in the payment of such debts as he had to collect; but that there was a limit to his discretion, and that he would not be authorized to receive funds so depreciated as that it would amount to notice that they would not be received.

    Judgment reversed. Cited: Emerson v. Mallett, 62 N.C. 236; Barham v. Gregory, ibid., 249; McKay v. Smitherman, 64 N.C. 50; Baird v. Hall, 67 N.C. 233; Utley v. Young, 68 N.C. 391; Melvin v. Stevens, 84 N.C. 82. Dist.: Greenlee v. Sudderth, 65 N.C. 473; Purvis v. Jackson, 69 N.C. 480.