Kinlaw v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtLaxe, J.
The allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff is the duly qualified and acting administratrix of the deceased is denied in the answer and the record does not disclose any evidence that she was so appointed. Nothing else appearing, the judgment of non-suit would have been proper on this ground. Graves v. Welborn, 260 N.C. 688, 133 S.E. 2d 761; Carr v. Lee, 249 N.C. 712, 107 S.E. 2d 544. However, the agreed statement of the case on appeal states, “This is a civil action instituted by Annie P. Kinlaw, Administra-trix of the Estate of Herman Floyd Kinlaw, deceased.” We infer from this that…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Graves v. WelbornSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Lewis v. BarnhillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- McCrater v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
- Pruett v. InmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
- Bondurant v. MastinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Raftery v. Wm. C. Vick Construction Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- Broadfoot v. EverettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- Brown v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad CompanySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
- Neal v. BoothSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
- Angersola v. Radiologic Assocs. of Middletown, P.C.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2018
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.