Ragan v. . Ragan
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
Peb CuRiam.
Plaintiff challenges the judgment of Williams, J., on three grounds, neither of which is tenable: (1) That the court erred in permitting the defendant to amend verification. ' It is discretionary with the trial judge to allow, such amendment. Moore v. Moore, 130 N. C., 333, 41 S. E., 943. (2) That the allegations of the cross action do not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The allegations are sufficient to bring the cross action within the provision of O. S., 1660. (3) That the findings of fact are insufficient to support an award of alimony and counsel fees.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Vaughan v. . VaughanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
- Moore v. MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
- Moore v. . MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
- Hennis v. . HennisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
- Massey v. . MasseySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
3Cited by8 opinions
- Veazey v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
- Hoke v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
- Lawrence v. . LawrenceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
- Fogartie v. FogartieSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- Joyner v. JoynerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.