Legal Opinion

Dixon v. Dixon

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 16, 1958Published

1Opinion of the Court

Winborne, C. J.:

This is the determinative question on this appeal: Does the complaint in this action contain a misjoinder of causes of action?

In the light of applicable statute, G.S. 1-123, as interpreted and applied by this Court, the answer is “No.” Bedsole v. Monroe, 40 N.C. 313; Fisher v. Trust Co., 138 N.C. 224, 50 S.E. 659; Chemical Co. v. Floyd, 158 N.C. 455, 74 S.E. 465; Bundy v. Marsh, 205 N.C. 768, 172 S.E. 353; Barkley v. Realty Co., 211 N.C. 540, 191 S.E. 3; Bellman v. Bissette, 222 N.C. 72, 21 S.E. 2d 896; Owen v. Hines, 227 N.C. 236, 41 S.E. 2d 739; Erickson v. Starling, 233…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. FloydSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
  2. Fisher v. . Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1905
  3. Bedsole v. . MonroeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1848
  4. Barkley v. McClung Realty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  5. Erickson v. StarlingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API