Rumbough v. Southern Improvement Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This ACTION, tried at November Term, 1889, of MadisoN Superior Court, before Whitaker, J., was brought to recover of the defendant corporation a certain amount alleged to be due upon a bill of exchange in the following words and figures, to wit: “$950. Hot Fpeixgs, Nevember 19, 1887. “Ninety days after date, pay to the order of H. T. Rum-bough, Esq., for account of J. H. Rumbough, nine hundred and fifty dollars.
Read the full summary
This ACTION, tried at November Term, 1889, of MadisoN Superior Court, before Whitaker, J., was brought to recover of the defendant corporation a certain amount alleged to be due upon a bill of exchange in the following words and figures, to wit: “$950. Hot Fpeixgs, Nevember 19, 1887. “Ninety days after date, pay to the order of H. T. Rum-bough, Esq., for account of J. H. Rumbough, nine hundred and fifty dollars. W. E. Watkiks, “To Southern Improvement Co., No. 2 Wall, N. Y.” “Accepted. Payable at First National Bank, New York. “ SouTHERN IMPROVEMENT Co., “By W. E. Watkins.” ' Upon the reading…
1Opinion of the Court
MeeriMON, O. J.:
Regularly, the pleadings in an action should be settled before the trial begins. Hence, the plaintiff should have made objection to the sufficiency of the answer before the jury were empanneled. It seems that it was made afterwards, but the Court entertained the motion, as it might do in the exercise of its discretion, and denied the same.
We think the answer to the sixth paragraph of the complaint was insufficient, and clearly not a compliance with the statutory provision (The Cude, § 243), nor did it serve 'the purpose of The Code method of procedure. The provision just cited…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mechanics' Bank v. Bank of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1820
- Lewis v. Albemarle & Raleigh RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1886
- Flack. Adm'r v. . Dawson .Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1873
- Durden v. . SimmonsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
- Lay Gas MacHine Co. v. Falls of Neuse Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Clary v. Alexander County Board of EducationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
- Helena Power Transmission Co. v. SprattMontana Supreme Court · 1907
- Curtis v. Piedmont Lumber & Mining Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
- Early v. Early.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904
- W. G. Fountain v. West Lumber Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1912