Hood, Comr. of Banks v. . Motor Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.
Whether tbe defendants should have been allowed to amend tbeir counterclaim, after demurrer sustained, was a matter addressed to tbe sound discretion of tbe trial court, and is not reviewable on appeal. C. S., 515; McKeel v. Latham, 203 N. C., 246, 165 S. E., 694; Morris v. Cleve, 194 N. C., 202, 139 S. E., 230.
There was no error in overruling tbe demurrer to tbe counterclaim as amended. Griffin v. Bank, 205 N. C., 253, 171 S. E., 71. Indeed, it might well have been disregarded (C. S., 512), or treated as a motion to dismiss (Elam v. Barnes, 110 N. C., 73, 14 S. E., 621), from tbe refusal of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Plemmons v. Southern Improvement Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
- Seawell v. Chas. Cole & Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
- Elam v. . BarnesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892
- Griffin v. Bank of ColeridgeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
- Morris v. . CleveSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Burrell v. DICKSON TRANSFER COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- Morgan v. High Penn Oil Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1952