Legal Opinion

Western Carolina Power Co. v. Klutz

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 12, 1928PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, 0. J.

Even if it be conceded that the present proceeding cannot properly be consolidated for trial with the three other condemnation proceedings pending in the Superior Court of Catawba County as petitioner alleges — which question is not presented and therefore not decided — still the motion to remove, on the grounds stated, “for the convenience of witnesses and to promote the ends of justice,” 0. S., 470, rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and is not reviewable on appeal. Perry v. Perry, 172 N. C., 62, 89 S. E., 999; Byrd v. Spruce Co., 170 N. C., 429, 87 S. E., 241;…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Garrett & Co. v. BearSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
  2. Byrd v. Carolina Spruce Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
  3. Perry v. . PerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. v. HoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  2. Howard v. Queen City Coach Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  3. Nichols v. GoldstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  4. Grimes v. . FultonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API