1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. S.E.2d
  4. 151 S.E.2d
  5. 151 S.E.2d 1 (1966)
 

FLOYD v. NASH

No. 543.

151 S.E.2d 1 (1966)

268 N.C. 547

Lucille G. FLOYD, Administratrix of the Estate of Jimmy Floyd v. Harold M. NASH and wife, Mary Evelyn NASH and Duke Power Company.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 23, 1966.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Griffin & Perry, Monroe, for plaintiff appellant.

Harold D. Coley, Jr., William I. Ward, Jr., Carl Horn, Jr., Charlotte, and Richardson & Dawkins, Monroe, for defendant Power Company.

Coble Funderburk, Monroe, for defendants Nash.

PER CURIAM.

There is no evidence in the record to show, or to support an inference, that the Power Company knew of the existence of the feed tank or had any notice that it would be constructed. It was built after the power line was constructed and in use. This distinguishes the present case from Essick v. Lexington, 233 N.C. 600, 65 S.E.2d 220, and brings it within the rule of Philyaw v. City of Kinston...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases