Foy v. . Stephens
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by plaintiff from Peebles, J., at November Term, 1914, of CRAVEN. Civil action. Tbe complaint and tbe answer were read and tben tbe defendants demurred ore terms upon tbe ground tbat tbe complaint failed to state a cause of action. His Honor sustained tbe motion and dismissed tbe action. Tbe plaintiffs appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
Tbe only question presented relates to tbe sufficiency of tbe complaint to make out a cause of action. We bave beld tbat a demurrer will not be sustained to tbe extent of dismissing tbe action, unless it entirely fails to state a cause of action.
If in any portion of it it presents facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, or if facts sufficient for tbat purpose can be fairly gathered from it, tbe pleading will stand, however inartificially it may bave been drawn, or however uncertain, defective, or redundant may be its statements, for, contrary to tbe common-law rule, a veiy…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Gaylord v. GaylordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
- Hoke v. . GlennSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
- Brewer v. . WynneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Fortune v. . HuntSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- Tarlton v. Griggs.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1902
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Colt v. . KimballSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- Cotton Mills v. . Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- Davis v. RhodesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- Stone v. Doctors' Lake Milling Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1926
- Thomas & Howard Co. of Shelby, Inc. v. American Mutual Liability InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.