Court Opinion

ID: 9807952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:22:05.055589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:19.537160
License: Public Domain

BrowN, J.,
dissenting: I am constrained to dissent from tbe conclusion reached by tbe Court in tbis case for tbe reasons given in my dissenting opinion in Barden v. R. r., 152 N. C., 318, and also in my opinion in King v. R. R., 157 N. C., 44.
I see no evidence whatever in tbis case of fraud and undue influence which brings tbe case within tbe principle laid down by tbe majority of tbe Court in tbe King case. There is no evidence that tbe plaintiff was injured while engaged in interstate commerce; certainly there is no finding of fact to that effect. Therefore, tbe provisions of tbe Federal act invalidating Relief Department contracts bave no application. Neither has a similar act enacted by tbe Legislature of tbis State, for tbe reason that tbe injury occurred before tbe ratification of tbe act.
Tbis whole question has been fully discussed in tbe cases I bave cited, and as they cannot well arise in tbe future, it is useless to discuss this matter any further.
MR. Justice Walker concurs in tbis opinion.