Erwin v. . Lowery
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil Action, tried before Henry J., at December Special Term 1869 of Buncombe Court. The defendant Lowery was maker of tbe note sued upon, and tbe three defendants were three out of four of the executors of James E. Love deceased, the payee of such note.
Read the full summary
Civil Action, tried before Henry J., at December Special Term 1869 of Buncombe Court. The defendant Lowery was maker of tbe note sued upon, and tbe three defendants were three out of four of the executors of James E. Love deceased, the payee of such note. These executors had endorsed the note, and there was another executor, who had not joined in such endorsement. . The answer of such of the executors as were sued, relied upon the fact that all of them had not joined in the endorsement, as a defence to the action. Upon the filing of such answer, the plaintiff moved for judgment, 1. against…
1Opinion of the CourtEodman, J.
In this case the plaintiff, considering the answer frivolous, moved the Court for judgment, under S.218, C. C. P. That section requires five days notice, which was not given. No objection was made on that account, and we-, would be inclined to hold that there is no necessity for notice, when the case comes on regularly for trial at a term of the court.
Was the answer frivolous ? What is meant by a “frivolous” answer in the Code, is, one which is manifestly impertinent, as alleging matters which, whether true or not, do af- feet the plaintiff’s right to recover. In Linwood v. Squire 5 Exch. (W.…
2Cited by16 opinions
- New Bern Banking & Trust Co. v. DuffySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Allison v. . WhittierSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
- Chasteen v. . MartinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1879
- Johnston v. . PateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1880
- Carolina Hardware Co. v. Raleigh Banking & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.