positive requirement in North Carolina

1933In Godfrey v. Coach Company, 201 N. C., 264 , 150 S. E., 412 , it is said: “The violation of a statute intended and designed to prevent injury to persons or property, or the failure to observe a positive requirement of the law, is under a uniform line of decisions, negligence per se, Dickey v. R.

1933In Godfrey v. Coach Company , 201 N.C. 264 , 150 S.E. 412 , it is said: "The violation of a statute intended and designed to prevent injury to persons or property, or the failure to observe a positive requirement of the law, is under a uniform line of decisions, negligence per se, Dickey v. R.

1933R., 196 N. C., 726 , 147 S. E., 15 ; Ledbetter v. English, 166 N. C., 125 , 81 S. E., 1066 , and when a violation or failure of this kind is admitted or established, it is ordinarily a question for the jury whether such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.

1933R., 196 N. C., 726 , 147 S. E., 15 ; Ledbetter v. English, 166 N. C., 125 , 81 S. E., 1066 , and when a violation or failure of this kind is admitted or established, it is ordinarily a question for the jury whether such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.

1933R., 196 N. C., 726 , 147 S. E., 15 ; Ledbetter v. English, 166 N. C., 125 , 81 S. E., 1066 , and when a violation or failure of this kind is admitted or established, it is ordinarily a question for the jury whether such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.

1933R., 196 N. C., 726 , 147 S. E., 15 ; Ledbetter v. English, 166 N. C., 125 , 81 S. E., 1066 , and when a violation or failure of this kind is admitted or established, it is ordinarily a question for the jury whether such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.

2006Hudson v. Game World, Inc. , 126 N.C.

1963While a statute of limitations is a positive defense and must be pleaded, when it has been properly pleaded, the burden is upon the plaintiff to show that his claim is not barred, and not upon the defendant to show that it is barred, EXCEPT WHERE THE STATUTE IS RELIED UPON TO GIVE TITLE, AS IN AN ACTION FOR LAND, WHERIN THE DEFENDANT MUST MAKE GOOD HIS TITLE TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S TITLE WHEN PROVED (emphasis added.) McIntosh North Carolina P & P, Section 372. “ ‘Defendants were at liberty to establish their title to the land in controversy without having to plea the source or manner in which th

1963On page 176 Malone, after reviewing a number of our decisions, states: “Certainly the rule that failure to read is a positive bar to recovery cannot be accepted at its face value.” In Coppersmith v. Insurance Co., 222 N.C. 14 , 21 S.E. 2d 838 , which is cited in Setzer v. Insurance Co., supra, in support of the part we have quoted, it appeared that plaintiff requested his agent to obtain a policy of fire and marine insurance; that defendant issued a policy which provided that $1,000 should be deducted from the total amount of any claim, whereas plaintiff contended that the deduction clause sho

1963On page 176 Malone, after reviewing a number of our decisions, states: “Certainly the rule that failure to read is a positive bar to recovery cannot be accepted at its face value.” In Coppersmith v. Insurance Co., 222 N.C. 14 , 21 S.E. 2d 838 , which is cited in Setzer v. Insurance Co., supra, in support of the part we have quoted, it appeared that plaintiff requested his agent to obtain a policy of fire and marine insurance; that defendant issued a policy which provided that $1,000 should be deducted from the total amount of any claim, whereas plaintiff contended that the deduction clause sho

1957Lee v. *317 Chamblee, 223 N.C. 146 , 25 S.E. 2d 433 ; Rankin v. Oates, 183 N.C. 517 , 112 S.E. 32 . 2.

1957Lee v. *317 Chamblee, 223 N.C. 146 , 25 S.E. 2d 433 ; Rankin v. Oates, 183 N.C. 517 , 112 S.E. 32 . 2.

1957Lee v. *317 Chamblee, 223 N.C. 146 , 25 S.E. 2d 433 ; Rankin v. Oates, 183 N.C. 517 , 112 S.E. 32 . 2.

1957Lee v. *317 Chamblee, 223 N.C. 146 , 25 S.E. 2d 433 ; Rankin v. Oates, 183 N.C. 517 , 112 S.E. 32 . 2.

1953The failure to do so, made the subject of a specific exception and duly brought forward, must be held for error as a failure to comply with the requirements of Gr.S. 1-180, within the purview of the rule explained and applied by Ervin, J., in Lewis v. Watson, 229 N.C. 20 , 47 S.E. 2d 484 .

1953The failure to do so, made the subject of a specific exception and duly brought forward, must be held for error as a failure to comply with the requirements of Gr.S. 1-180, within the purview of the rule explained and applied by Ervin, J., in Lewis v. Watson, 229 N.C. 20 , 47 S.E. 2d 484 .

1904It is to be regretted that we cannot consider and decide this appeal upon its merits, but we are forbidden to do so by a positive rule of this Court which was adopted as long ago as 1850, in Devereux v. Burgwin , 33 N.C. 490 , and has been consistently enforced ever since.