construction rule in North Carolina

2002"The doctrine of liberal construction [of the Workers' Compensation Act] arises out of the Act itself, and relates to cases falling within the purview of the Act." Hayes v. Board of Trustees of Elon College , 224 N.C. 11 , 19 , 29 S.E.2d 137 (1944).

2002"The doctrine of liberal construction [of the Workers' Compensation Act] arises out of the Act itself, and relates to cases falling within the purview of the Act." Hayes v. Board of Trustees of Elon College , 224 N.C. 11 , 19 , 29 S.E.2d 137 (1944).

1969R., 191 N.C. 84, 89 , 131 S.E. 413, 416 .

1969R., 191 N.C. 84, 89 , 131 S.E. 413, 416 .

1968While we recognize and reaffirm the general rule that unless an objection is made at the proper time it is waived, State v. Bryant, 235 N.C. 420 , 70 S.E. 2d 186 ; State v. Hunt, supra, in our judgment it would be too strict and narrow a construction of the rule to hold that particular facts of this case show that objection was not properly and timely made.

1968While we recognize and reaffirm the general rule that unless an objection is made at the proper time it is waived, State v. Bryant, 235 N.C. 420 , 70 S.E. 2d 186 ; State v. Hunt, supra, in our judgment it would be too strict and narrow a construction of the rule to hold that particular facts of this case show that objection was not properly and timely made.

1912It was held in Achenbach v. Johnston, 84 N. C., 264 , that “a field grown up in broomsedge and wire-grass” was not woods within the intent of the statute, and it was said that the case of Hall v. Cranford, 50 N. C., 3 , stretched the doctrine of liberal construction, in order to reach the mischief intended to be remedied, as far as it is safe to follow; and we concur in that view.

1912It was held in Achenbach v. Johnston, 84 N. C., 264 , that “a field grown up in broomsedge and wire-grass” was not woods within the intent of the statute, and it was said that the case of Hall v. Cranford, 50 N. C., 3 , stretched the doctrine of liberal construction, in order to reach the mischief intended to be remedied, as far as it is safe to follow; and we concur in that view.

1905Such statutes assume to call into active operation a power, which, however essential to the existence of government, is in derogation of the ordinary rights of private ownership and of the control which an owner usually has of his property.” Matter of Bridge Co., 108 N. Y., 483 .

1900The construction placed by the United States Supreme Court upon the United States Constitution is binding upon all, and that high tribunal, in the very recent case of Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U. S., at pages 576, 577, cite the uniform rulings of that Court, notably, Butler v. Pennsylvania, 10 How., 402, 416 , and Crenshaw v. U. S., 134 U. S., 99 , “in which latter case,” the Court says, “Mr. Justice Lamar, stated the primary question in the case to be ‘whether an officer appointed for a definite time or during good behavior, had any vested interest or contract right in his office, of which Congr

1900The construction placed by the United States Supreme Court upon the United States Constitution is binding upon all, and that high tribunal, in the very recent case of Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U. S., at pages 576, 577, cite the uniform rulings of that Court, notably, Butler v. Pennsylvania, 10 How., 402, 416 , and Crenshaw v. U. S., 134 U. S., 99 , “in which latter case,” the Court says, “Mr. Justice Lamar, stated the primary question in the case to be ‘whether an officer appointed for a definite time or during good behavior, had any vested interest or contract right in his office, of which Congr

1898The degree of care required would depend upon the peculiar circumstances of each case, since, as is said in Grand Trunk Railway v. Ives, 144 U. S., 408, 417 , “what may be deemed or-nary care in one case, may, under different surroundings and circumstances, be gross negligence.” But the same relative degree of care is required of the defendant as of the plaintiff; and where the defendant *875 has, by its own act, increased the danger, it must take greater care to prevent the natural or probable results of the greater danger it has created.

1878In Adams v. Nashville, 95 U. S. Rep. 19 , the construction of this clause again came before the Supreme Court, and it was alleged that an exemption, resulting from a statute of Tennessee which declared that no tax should be put on the capital of any bank, state or national, operated to impose a burden upon stock holders in national banks which was not put upon other moneyed capital belonging to individuals, and was in conflict with the provisions of the law.