Town of Durham v. Richmond & Danville Railroad
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Miller v. Bank of Washington (N.C. 1918)
- Robertson v. Mississippi Valley Co. (Miss. 1919)
- Lynch v. Hazelwood (N.C. 1985)
- Lynch v. Hazelwood (N.C. 1985)
- Switzerland Co. v. . Highway Commission (N.C. 1939)
- Switzerland Co. v. North Carolina State Highway & Public Works Commission (N.C. 1939)
- Seay v. . Insurance Co. (N.C. 1935)
- Seay v. Sentinel Life Insurance (N.C. 1935)
- Veolay, Inc. v. United States (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals 1933)
- Mfg. Co. v. . Mfg. Co. (N.C. 1931)
- Hunter Manufacturing & Commission Co. v. Leak Manufacturing Co. (N.C. 1931)
- McCarter v. . R. R. (N.C. 1924)
- Jenkins v. Suncrest Lumber Co. (N.C. 1924)
- McCarter v. Atlanta & Charlotte Air Line Railway Co. (N.C. 1924)
- City of Kalamazoo v. Crawford (Mich. 1908)
- Boone v. . Peebles (N.C. 1900)
- Bank v. . Burlington (N.C. 1899)
- Bank v. Burlington (N.C. 1899)
- Puryear v. . Lynch (N.C. 1897)
- Whichard v. Wilmington & Weldon Railroad (N.C. 1895)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In this case both the plaintiff and defendants appealed. Mr. Justice Burwell did not sit, and the Court is evenly divided. The appeals have now been standing on *241 this docket four terras. Under these circumstances, following the uniform practice of appellate Courts in such cases, the judgment below stands, not os a precedent, but as the decision in this case. Marshall, C. J., in Etting v. Bank, 11 Wheat., 59; TaNEY, C. J., in Benton v. Woolsey, 12 Pet., 27, and in Holmes v. Jenison, 14 Peters, 540; Washington v. Stewart, 3 Howard, 413, 424; Chase, C. J., in Reeside v. Reeside, 8 Wall., 302; Durant v. Essex Co., 8 Allen (Mass.), 103; 85 American Dec., 685. The appellauts will respectively pay the costs, each in their own appeal.
Plaintiff’s appeal affirmed.
Defendants’ appeal affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.