Hall v. . Turner
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was a civil ACTION, tried before Connor, J., and a jury, at August Term, 1892, of the Superior Court of OraNGE County. (See same case, 110 N. C., 292.) When this cause was called for trial, the defendants, with leave of the Court, demurred to the complaint, for that the plaintiffs had in their complaint set forth several causes of action, which, under The Code, could not be joined. The defendants did not offer to withdraw their answers heretofore filed.
Read the full summary
This was a civil ACTION, tried before Connor, J., and a jury, at August Term, 1892, of the Superior Court of OraNGE County. (See same case, 110 N. C., 292.) When this cause was called for trial, the defendants, with leave of the Court, demurred to the complaint, for that the plaintiffs had in their complaint set forth several causes of action, which, under The Code, could not be joined. The defendants did not offer to withdraw their answers heretofore filed. The Court overruled the demurrer, and the defendants duly excepted. There was evidence that defendants had erected two dams at the place…
1Per curiam
Even had there been a misjoinder of causes of action, it could not have been taken advantage of by demurrer until the defendants had withdrawn their answer. Burns v. Ashworth, 72 N. C., 496; Finley v. Hayes, 81 N. C., 368.
The Court correctly ruled that “the right of the defendant ancestor and intestate Evans Turner was not exhausted by the building of one dam, but that he had the right to keep up and maintain a dam, and, if gecessary to do so, to erect a second dam to the height of nine feet.”
We have considered the other exceptions, and they are also without merit. Affirmed.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Finley v. . HayesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1879
- Burns v. . Ashworth .Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1875
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hocutt v. Wilmington & Weldon R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1899
- Strickland v. . CoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889