Legal Opinion

King v. Smith

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 17, 1952No. 19PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBauNhill, J.

The defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the complaint for that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for the wrongful desecration of the graves of the Kings. That is, he does not assert that the complaint fails to allege a tor.t for which resulting damages may be recovered by the real party in interest. S. v. Wilson, 94 N.C. 1015; 10 A.J. 514, 15 A.J. 841; Anno. 21 A.L.R. 651; 42 L.R.A. 721n. His demurrer is bottomed upon the theory that at the time the alleged wrongful act was committed plaintiffs were not then next of kin of the Kings and are not now…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In Re Estate of PoindexterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  2. Williams v. . JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  3. State v. . WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
  4. In Re Estate of MizzelleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Rodman v. MishSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  2. Robinson v. FOREST CREEK LTD. PARTNERSHIPCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API