holding error in North Carolina

2010Id. at 492-96, 533 S.E.2d at 846-48 .

2001Defendant further relies on Barnes, 345 N.C. 184 , 481 S.E.2d 44 , (1997) to support the proposition that because a defendant may be convicted of premeditated first-degree murder under the principle of acting in concert, the question of whether a defendant is guilty of premeditated murder is not necessarily the same question as whether the defendant intended to kill.

2001Defendant further relies on Barnes, 345 N.C. 184 , 481 S.E.2d 44 , (1997) to support the proposition that because a defendant may be convicted of premeditated first-degree murder under the principle of acting in concert, the question of whether a defendant is guilty of premeditated murder is not necessarily the same question as whether the defendant intended to kill.

1996App. 34 , 162 S.E.2d 644 (1968) (this Court holding that the presumption of the regularity of official acts is one of law, and not of fact, and may be rebutted or overthrown by competent evidence).

1994Boyd at 543 , 424 S.E.2d at 172 .

1991“No contract, oral or written, enforceable or not, is necessary to support a recovery based upon unjust enrichment.” Parslow v. Parslow, 47 N.C.

1967As this Court, speaking through the present Chief Justice, said in City of Durham v. Public Service Co., 257 N.C. 546 , 126 S.E.2d 315 , "Ordinarily, an injunction will not be granted where there is a full, adequate and complete remedy at law, which is as practical and efficient as is the equitable remedy." Here the defendants can derive no benefit from the injunction entered below which they would not gain by a judgment dismissing the proceeding. *256 The holding that there was error in issuing the injunction does not dispose of the matter, however.

1967As this Court, speaking through the present Chief Justice, said in City of Durham v. Public Service Co., 257 N.C. 546 , 126 S.E.2d 315 , "Ordinarily, an injunction will not be granted where there is a full, adequate and complete remedy at law, which is as practical and efficient as is the equitable remedy." Here the defendants can derive no benefit from the injunction entered below which they would not gain by a judgment dismissing the proceeding. *256 The holding that there was error in issuing the injunction does not dispose of the matter, however.

1916No *814 paper evidence of a transfer of possession is necessary when the holding is under the claim of the first entryman.” In Bond v. Beverly: “The subsequent holder under a deed void for uncertainty of description was allowed to tack his possession to that of his grantor and refer the same to the deed under which the latter held as color.” In Barrett v. Brewer the doctrine of tacking was disallowed,- but that was on the ground that there had been no entry by the ancestor under the color, and, speaking to the question, Associate Justice Brown quotes with approval from Shevin v. Brackett as fo